
Oass _zJ-55_ 
Book_L 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT 



A SHORT HISTORY OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE 

In Two Volumes 



A SHORT HISTORY OF THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Volume I. (To 1789) 
The Foundations of American Nationality 

By Evarts Boutell Greene 

Professor of History, University of Illinois 

Volume II. (1783 to the present time) 

The Development of American Nationality 

By Carl Russell Fish 

Professor of American History, University of Wisconsin 




Bexjamin Franklin 



THE FOUNDATIONS OF 
AMERICAN NATIONALITY 



BY 

EVARTS BOUTELL GREENE 

PROFESSOR OF HISTORY 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 




AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY 

NEW YORK CINCINNATI CHICAGO 

BOSTON ATLANTA 



y/V 



Copyright, 1922, by 
AMERICAN BOOK COMPANY 



All Rights Reserved 



FOUND. AMER. NATIONALITY 
E. P. I. 



©CI.A677253 



MADE IN U. S. A. 



M 23 1922 



GENERAL PREFACE 

The authors hope that this " Short History of the American 
People " may serve the purposes of two classes of readers. 
They have aimed, in the first instance, to provide for college 
undergraduates pursuing an introductory course in American 
history, a general manual which will embody, in some meas- 
ure at least, the enlarged knowledge and the new points of 
view made possible by the results of research in recent years. 
They believe also that this history will meet the requirements 
of the general reader who desires a comprehensive view of 
the subject within reasonable compass. For the student and 
the general reader alike, it is hoped that the bibliographical 
notes may point the way to more extended studies. 

The aim of the authors is not so much to present a bal- 
anced narrative of events, as to describe those movements 
and forces which have left their permanent impress upon 
the national character and institutions. The first volume 
{The Foundations of American Nationality, before 1789) deals 
with the molding of the varied European elements and the 
several detached colonies into an independent and imited 
nation ; the second (The Development of American Natiotiality, 
1783 to the Present Time) deals with the development of the 
nation so formed. While any division of the subject matter 
of history occasions perplexity and disagreement, the authors 
believe that the character of the problems confronting the 
people of the time, and the character of the materials which 
the historian must employ, permanently differentiate the colo- 
nial period from the national, and that the two can best be 
treated by different men. In order, however, that each author 
might have full liberty to express his views, the volumes over- 
lap for the period 1783 to 1789. 



PREFACE TO VOLUME I 

Forty years have now passed since George Bancroft 
closed his History of the United States with the establish- 
ment in 1789 of our present federal system. Since that 
time the work of many competent historians has served to 
establish a better balance; colonial history can no longer 
claim anything like the relative attention which it received 
in the days of Bancroft and his contemporaries. It is, 
nevertheless, certain that the characteristic institutions 
and ideals of the United States cannot be fully under- 
stood without tracing them back to their beginnings in 
colonial times and on European soil. 

It is equally certain that the scientific student of 
American origins is no longer content with the older inter- 
pretations. For the past three decades, such scholars as 
Channing, Turner, Andrews, Beer, and Osgood have 
exploited new materials, suggested new points of view, 
and often made necessary the abandonment, or at least the 
reconsideration, of time-honored traditions. It seems worth 
while, therefore, to take a new account of stock — to trace 
in a single volume, for the general reader as well as for the 
student, the main outlines of our earlier history as they now 
appear after a quarter-century of research and discussion. 
Any such survey must of course be provisional only, because 
many phases of the subject have not yet been adequately 
investigated. The author has tried to write without bias, 
whether for or against traditional views, and with an open 
mind for new facts and new theories of interpretation. 

With the general tendency of recent historical literature 
toward fuller recognition of economic and social, as dis- 



viii PREFACE TO VOLUME I 

tinguished from strictly political, history, the author is in 
full sympathy; and the allotment of space has been planned 
accordingly. It is well known also that many phases of 
colonial history have been given new meaning by relating 
this development more closely to that of the great empire 
of which the colonies formed only a part, though an increas- 
ingly important part. With full recognition of this imperial 
background, the author has nevertheless felt justified in 
emphasizing those aspects of colonial experience which seem 
most significant for the subsequent development of the 
American nation. 

The brief bibliographical notes at the end of each chapter 
have been prepared for readers rather than for investi- 
gators; the latter will necessarily search for additional 
material through the standard bibliographical aids and in 
the footnotes of secondary authorities dealing with special 
periods or topics. For every chapter some illustrative 
material from the sources is indicated; but, in general, the 
lists do not include extensive documentary publications, 
such as legislative journals or statutes. It is obviously 
unpossible also to make more than a very limited selection 
from the great mass of monographic and periodical litera- 
ture which has been published, especially during the past 
three decades. 

While assuming full responsibility for all errors of omis- 
sion or commission, I am under special obligations to 
Professor Carl Russell Fish of the University of Wisconsin, 
who read the volume in manuscript, and to my colleague. 
Professor Laurence M. Larson of the University of Illinois, 
who read the first proof. 

EvARTS B. Greene 



GENERAL REFERENCES 

The most essential works of general reference for the period covered 
by this volume are the following: 

Channing, E., Hart, A. B., and Turner, F. J., Guide to the Siudy and 
Reading of American .History, Boston, 1912. The best introduction 
to the bibliography of American history. 
Channing, E., A History of the United States, 5 vols, so far issued, 
N. Y., 1905-1921. (Cited as Channing, United States.) The first 
three volumes are the leading authority on this period. 
Hart, A. B., Editor, The American Nation: A History. 28 vols., 
N. Y., 1904-1908. Each volume has a separate author and the first 
ten volumes cover this period. Useful both for narrative and bib- 
liography. (Cited by individual authors.) 
WiNSOR, J., Editor, Narrative and Critical History of America. 8 vols., 
Boston, 1884-89. (Cited as Winsor, America.) Deals mainly with the 
period before 1789. Written many years ago but still indispensable, 
especially as a guide to the sources of information. 
The most important of the older authorities covering the whole field 
is Bancroft, G., History of the United States \_14g2-178g]. Author's 
last revision 6 vols., N. Y., 1883-1885. (Cited as Bancroft, United 
Stales.) Largely superseded but still useful on many topics. A. Johnson, 
Editor, Chronicles of America, New Haven, 1918-1921 has some inter- 
esting volumes on the colonial period. (Individual volumes are cited 
by author and title.) 

The following one-volume books cover the colonial era: Andrews, 
C. M., The Colonial Period (Home University Library), N. Y., 1912 
(A brief summary by a leading authority); C. Becker, Beginnings of 
the American People, N. Y., 1915 (Suggestive); Bolton, H. E. and Mar- 
shall, T. M., The Colonization of North Atnerica, 1492-1783, N. Y., 
1920 (Brings out the international background of English colonization). 
Useful collections of sources are: MacDonald, W., Select Charters 
Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775, N. Y., 1904, and his Select 
Documents Ulustrative of the History of the United States, N. Y., 1909. 
These are cited as Select Charters, and Select Documents. (A less com- 
plete collection is his Documentary Source-Book of American History, 
1606-igij, N. Y., 1916.) Hart, A. B., American History Told by Con- 
is. 



X GENERAL REFERENCES 

temporaries, 4 vols., N. Y., 1897-1901. (Cited as Hart, Contemporaries.) 
Stedman, E. C. and Hutchinson, E. M., Library of American Liter ature, 
II vols., N. Y., 1888-1890. J. F. Jameson, Ed., Original Narratives 
of Early American History is a more extensive series for the seventeenth 
century. 

A good collection of maps with suggestive notes on historical geog- 
raphy is Fox, D. R., Harpefs Atlas of American History, N. Y., 1920. 
There are also some very convenient maps in Shepherd, W. R., Histor- 
ical Atlas, N. Y., 1921; and in Muir, R., Hammond's New Historical 
Atlas for Students, N. Y. Avery, E. M., History of the United States, 
7 vols., Cleveland, 1904-1910, has many excellent illustrations. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

General References ix 

CHAPTER 

I. The European Inheritance i 

II. The English Outlook on America 20 

III. The Virginia Pioneers 45 

IV. The Chesapeake Colonies, 1632 to 1688 67 

V. New England Pioneers 87 

VI. The Puritan Commonwealths, 1635 to 1676 112 

VII. Expansion and Conquest 130 

VIII. English Colonization of the Hudson and Dela- 
ware Valleys, 1664 to 1688 155 

IX. Imperialism and Self-Government 178 

X. French and Spanish Rivals, 1608 to 1713 207 

XI. The Empire and the Colonies 226 

XII. Provincial New England 257 

XIII. Expansion in the Middle Provinces 281 

XIV. Expansion in the South 311 

XV. English and American Ways 338 

XVI. The Struggle for the West and the Passing of 

New France 357 

XVII. Imperial Problems and Policies, 1760 to 1766.... 388 

XVIII. The Eve of Revolution, 1766 to 1774 414 

XIX. Revolution, 1774 to 1776 437 

XX. The Opposing Forces 459 

XXI. Europe and America, 1776 to 1780 475 

XXII. Independence Won 496 

XXIII. Republican Diplomacy, 1779 to 1784 512 

XXIV. Independent America 526 



XU CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

XXV. Republican Principles in Reconstruction 547 

XXVI. Federal Problems, 1783 to 1787 565 

XXVII. The Great Convention 584 

XXVIII. The New Union 603 

PORTRAITS 



Benjamin Franklin (Portrait by B. Wilson, 1759) Frontispiece 

Sir Thomas Smith (Engraving by E. Passe, 1616) 53 

John Winthrop (Portrait belonging to the American Antiqua- 
rian Society) gg 

William Byrd, II (From a contemporary portrait) 328 

William Pitt (Portrait by Hoare, National Portrait Gallery, 

London) 380 

George Washington (Portrait by C. W. Peale, 1772) 443 

John Adams (Head and bust in small original of Trumbull's 
Signing of the Declaration of Independence, Yale School 
of Art) 468 



MAPS 

Western Europe about 1600 13 

Section of the " Wright-Hakluy t " Map (An English View of 

the North Atlantic World in 1600) 28, 29 

European Enterprise in America, 1600-1654 37 

Physical map of the Eastern Part of the United States 44 

English Continental Colonies to 1684 164 

Extension of Royal Governments 1 683-1 702 188 

North America and the Caribbean Region after the Treaty of 

Utrecht, 1713 224 

Principal Sea Routes of Colonial Commerce, 1700-1750... 244, 245 

International Frontiers, 1739-1755 366 

British Empire in North America, 1763-1775 389 

Europe and America, 1 775-1 783 476, 477 

The American People, 1 783-1 790 530 



THE FOUNDATIONS OF 
AMERICAN NATIONALITY 

CHAPTER I 
THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 

The development of the people now politically organized The 
in the United States of America is in a very true sense a part background. 
of European history; for it is the record of European enter- 
prise on American soil, of the transfer to a new environment 
of social habits and ideals which, though greatly changed by 
American conditions, are still essentially a phase of Euro- 
pean civilization. The true starting point for the history of 
the United States is not, therefore, the study of aboriginal 
America, nor even the process by which America became 
known to Europeans; it is rather the European world from 
which the colonists came, the stock of traditions and pre- 
judices which they inherited from their fathers, and the 
special characteristics of the age in which tliey lived. 

More definitely still, we must first try to understand the English 
England and the Englishmen of the early seventeenth cen- °"^^^" 
tury. It is indeed true, as Thomas Paine said in his Common 
Sense, that America is the child not of England only but of 
Europe; nevertheless, our earlier history is primarily con- 
cerned with the emigration, and adaptation to American 
life, of English men and English institutions. It was in 
1606, three years after the death of Queen Elizabeth, that 
the founders of the first successful English colony in America 
set out from the mother country. The foundation of twelve 
of the thirteen colonies which afterwards formed the United 
States of America was mainly the work of men then living, 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



England 
in 1606. 



Population. 



their children, and their grandchildren. The social experi- 
ence of these three generations, in the country from which 
most of them came, determined to a large extent their out- 
look upon life and the institutions which they founded in 
the New World. 

To understand the England of 1606, we must get rid of 
many associations which gather , about the British world 
power of the present day. When James I was crowned in 
1603, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland 
did not exist. In the English Parliament of that day only 
England and Wales were included. Though James I, King 
of England, was also James VI, King of Scotland, the two 
kingdoms were distinct, and for a hundred years more 
Scotland was regarded by Englishmen as a foreign coun- 
try. Ireland was a half-foreign dependency, with a sub- 
ordinate parliament of its own but without representation 
in the English Parliament. Indeed Ireland was itself con- 
sidered a proper field for colonization and in the seventeenth 
century the northern province of Ulster was settled by 
Scotchmen and Englishmen, partly displacing the native 
Irish. The Indian Empire of to-day was still undreamed 
of and there were no ''dominions beyond- the seas," except 
the shadowy claims to North America based upon the dis- 
coveries of the Cabots and a few unsuccessful attempts at 
settlement. In the British colony planting of the early 
seventeenth century, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and even Welsh- 
men were of minor importance; for the pioneers of New 
England and the Chesapeake colonies alike, the mother 
country was England proper. 

The population of England in 1606 was hardly five 
million, a small fraction of the present number. Even then, 
however, it was commonly believed that the country was 
overcrowded and needed an outlet for its surplus popu- 
lation. Sir George Peckham, a well-known promoter of 
colonization, declared that since England had for a long 



ENGLISH SOCIETY 3 

time enjoyed peace and freedom from serious pestilence, 
"there are at this day great numbers (God he knoweth) 
which live in such penurie and want, as they could be con- 
tented to hazard their lives, and to serve one yeere for meat, 
drinke, and apparell only, without wages, in hope thereby 
to mend their estates." During the latter part of the six- 
teenth century, the natural increase of population was 
reenforced by immigrants from the Continent, especially 
Protestants from the Netherlands who had been driven 
from home by the intolerance of Philip II. 

The people of England in 1606 were divided quite dis- Social 
tinctly into social classes. One contemporary writer names 
four of these classes. First come the "gentlemen," includ- 
ing not only the nobility of various grades but also "they 
that are simplie called gentlemen." Among the latter were 
counted the landed gentry, scholars, professional men, and 
military officers. It was one of the essential marks of a 
gentleman that he could live without manual labor. Second 
in order were the merchants, who had increased decidedly 
in numbers and importance during the Tudor period and 
were thought by the country people to be responsible for 
the higher cost of living. The third class were the yeomen 
or small farmers, who by good management often became 
prosperous, so that their sons at least might receive the 
benefits of university education, "live without labour," and 
so rise into the class of gentlemen. At the bottom of the 
social scale were the peasants in the country and the me- 
chanics and smaller tradespeople in the towns. This last class 
did not count for much politically, having "neither voice 
nor authoritie in the commonwealth"; they were "to be 
ruled and not to rule over." Nevertheless, they were called 
upon to fill minor offices in towns and country parishes, 

England was still mainly an agricultural country, but it Economic 
was passing through radical economic changes which affected "^*^^'^^^*^' 
almost every element of the population. In the southeastern 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



Joint-stock 
companies. 



Economic 
changes. 



counties especially, from which many of the American 
colonists came, woolen manufactures were developing 
strongly; their growth and protection against undesirable 
competition was an important phase of British policy dur- 
ing the colonial era. Furtliermore, the discovery of America, 
the mcreased supply of precious metals, and the constantly 
broadening opportunities for trade at home and abroad were 
developing a strong mercantile class who were not only 
able to live well but ready to invest their capital in pro- 
fitable enterprises abroad as well as at home. The ad- 
vantages of combination were already recognized and many 
joint-stock companies were chartered by Elizabeth and 
James I for the purpose of carrying on foreign trade. 
Among the companies so organized were the Muscovy Com- 
pany, first chartered in 1555, a few years before the ac- 
cession of Elizabeth, to carry on trade with Russia; the 
Eastland Company, chartered in 1579 for the Baltic trade; 
the Turkey Company in 1581; and the East India Com- 
pany, which, beginning in 1600 as a trading company only, 
became a great political power in the next century and laid 
the foundations of the British empire in India. London 
was the chief commercial port, but Bristol, Plymouth, and 
many smaller towns now rarely heard of played a large 
part in the seagoing commerce of the time. 

Economic expansion brought important changes in the 
relation of various classes to each other. In the towns, the 
guild system was breaking down and the distinction between 
the employer who furnished the capital and the employee 
who worked for wages was becoming more fixed. The new 
commercial spirit also affected the country. Through the 
buying up of confiscated monastery lands and in various 
other ways, country estates were coming into the hands of 
more aggressive and businesslike, but often unscrupulous 
landlords, recruited in part from the merchant class. Even 
when the ownership of these estates remained in the hands 



ECONOMIC CHANGES 5 

of an old family, the actual management was put into the 
hands of a new type of leasehold farmers who were naturally 
determined to make the business pay. These changes affected 
seriously the status of the agricultural population. Under Landlord 
the old manorial organization, the relation between land- 
lord and tenant had been determined more by custom than 
by formal contract. Serfdom had practically disappeared 
and the tenant held his land chiefly on condition of certain 
customary payments; so long as these conditions were met, 
his rights in the soil were nearly as secure as those of the 
landlord himself. Furthermore there were on every manor 
considerable tracts of land, pasture and woodland for in- 
stance, in which all the tenants had common rights. To 
the new landlord, these customary arrangements often 
seemed to interfere with efficient and profitable management 
of the estate. So, as the expanding woolen industry in- 
creased the demand for raw wool, he began to inclose com- 
mon lands for his exclusive use and sometimes to convert 
arable land into pasture. Sometimes also the old customary 
tenure was converted into leases which gave the landlord a 
better opportunity to drive hard bargains with his tenants 
and evict them when they failed to meet his terms. The 
result was a temporary lessening of the demand for agri- 
cultural labor, the depopulation of many communities, and 
the development of a large vagrant class. So the statesmen 
of the Tudor period were troubled by the problems of pau- 
perism and the crime that naturally follows. 

Thus in the economic changes of the sixteenth century, as inequalities, 
in many others before and since, the advantages of progress 
were unequally shared. While the commercial middle class 
was gaining in wealth, others were growing poorer; and, 
as prices rose, men of moderate means, as well as the very 
poor, were troubled by the increasing cost of living. In 
conditions like these contemporary writers found some of 
their chief arguments for colony planting. 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



King and 
Parliament. 



Constitu- 
tional issues. 



The Englishmen of 1606 lived under a monarchy and 
few of them thought any other form of government possible 
or desirable. At the head of the system stood the King, who 
came to his throne by right of hereditary descent and had 
the loyal support of nearly all his subjects. Nearly every- 
one, too, was willing to allow the King and his Council a 
freedom in the exercise of royal power quite impossible at 
the present day. Nevertheless, intelligent Englishmen gen- 
erally believed that the King's power was not unlimited, 
that new taxes should not be laid nor miportant changes 
made in the law without the consent of Parliament. This 
Parliament was not, however, representative of all classes 
but chiefly of those described as "gentlemen." The House 
of Lords included the greater nobility and the bishops of 
the national church. The country members of the House of 
Commons were chosen by the freeholders, who included 
beside the gentry the more independent of the farmer class. 
In the boroughs, the m^erchants had some representation, 
but the number of voters was generally small. 

Throughout the seventeenth century. Englishmen dis- 
agreed sharply as to the exact boundary between the King's 
prerogative and the authority of Parliament. Under the 
Tudor kings, the royal power was greatly increased, partly 
because such rulers as Henry VIII and Elizabeth were strong 
and, on the whole, popular leaders of the nation. The com- 
mon man profited in many ways from a strong central 
government which could preserve order and restrain the 
violence and injustice of the landowning aristocracy. The 
commercial classes also profited by the growth of royal 
authority which was used in many ways to promote their 
interests. During the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, how- 
ever, the so-called "country party," including both country 
gentlemen and members of the mercantile class, began to 
insist more strongly on the rights of the House of Commons. 
James I and his son Charles I met these rising demands with 



POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 7 

the theory of "divine right," asserting that the King received 
his crown independently of the national will and had certain 
''prerogative" rights which were above the law and could 
not be controlled by Parliament. These controversies, 
increasing in violence, combined with religious issues to 
bring on the great Civil War and the execution of Charles I. 
Finally the Revolution of 1688 established the sovereignty 
of Parliament as the foundation principle of English con- 
stitutional law. 

An important part of the work of government was done Courts of 

mstiicc 

by the national courts of justice, all of which, from the 
justices of the peace in the various counties to the great 
courts of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, were com- 
posed of judges appointed by the King and removable by 
him at his pleasure. Gradually during the Middle Ages 
the King's judges, going out into the country on their "cir- 
cuits," had built up, on the foundation of ancient customs, 
the great fabric of national law, displacing in large part 
the special jurisdictions of the feudal lords and the church. 
In these national courts, criminal cases were tried and jus- The "com- 
tice administered in civil suits according to certain well- 
recognized principles of the "common law," including the 
right of the defendant to a jury trial and the right of every 
individual not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property 
without due process of law. Though these principles were 
generally acknowledged, there were still great differences of 
opinion about their application. Englishmen were not always 
free from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment by order of 
the King; the King's influence over the judges was often 
so great as to prevent impartial justice; and there was much 
complaint about the irregular proceedings of the Star Cham- 
ber and other special courts which developed out of the 
King's Council. As a matter of fact, however, these irregu- 
lar methods were sometimes used to protect the common 
man against his more powerful neighbor. 



8 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



Local 

government. 



The county. 



The parish. 



Under the close supervision of the King's Council, a 
large share of the public business was done through the 
local governments, of which the most important were the 
county, the parish, and, for the urban areas, the boroughs. 
The most influential officers of the county government were 
the justices of the peace. These were appointed by the 
King and could be removed by him; but as a matter of fact 
they were usually the leading gentlemen of the county in 
v^^ealth, social standing, and influence. Sitting together as 
a court of "quarter sessions" they not only tried judicial 
cases but also did much that is now done by American 
county boards, including the levy of county taxes. One 
important authority exercised by the justices was that of 
fixing wages; in this, as in other matters, they naturally 
kept in view the interests of their own landowning class. 
The chief executive officer of the county government for 
ordinary purposes was the sherifi', who, like the justices, 
was usually a man of somie wealth and social standing. A 
more imposing personage was the lord lieutenant, a leading 
nobleman of the county, who commanded its military forces. 
The landowners of the county had an essential part in the 
system: they served as jurymen in the courts and they 
could also vote for the knights of the shire who represented 
them in the House of Commons. 

For the country population the parish was important. 
This was originally an agency for church government, and 
its principal officers, the churchwardens and vestrymen, 
v/ere elected in the parish meeting to take charge, with the 
clergyman, of the spiritual as well as the civil interests of 
the community. The ordinary police duties of the parish 
were performed by the constable, who was sometimes chosen 
by the parishioners, sometimes by the justices, and some- 
times by the lord of the manor in which the village was 
included. Just before the colonial era began, the parish was 
given another task, that of caring for the poor within its 



THE GOVERNING CLASSES 9 

limits. For all these purposes money was needed, and the 
parish rate, or tax, was collected from the inhabitants. An 
important factor in the life of almost every parish was the 
principal landowner, or lord of the manor, from whom the 
inhabitants held their land by various forms of tenure. 
The judicial authority of the manorial lord was gradually 
disappearing, but he was commonly a justice of the peace 
and his personal influence in the social and political life of 
the people was very great. 

The people of the urban areas and even of some small The 
country towns were organized in boroughs; these were °^^^ ' 
based on royal charters, some of which went back to the 
early Middle Ages. There was no uniform system. Mayors 
and aldermen were chosen in different ways, sometimes by 
the taxpayers, sometimes by a restricted class of so-called 
"freemen"; in many places the governing group was a 
"close corporation," filling vacancies in its own membership. 
In general the borough governments were controlled by a 
comparatively small number of persons. 

Thus whether we look at national government by King Aristocracy, 
and Parliament, or local government by justices of the 
peace and borough corporations, the English people lived 
under a political system which was sharply aristocratic. 
Generally speaking, it was the business of noblemen, other 
gentlemen, and to a certain extent of the richer middle class, 
to govern the country; it was the business of others to be 
ruled. Even a revolutionary leader like Oliver Cromwell 
believed that the distinction between "gentle" and "simple," 
between the "gentleman" and the common man, was desir- 
able and should be preserved. It was, in fact, carried over 
to the New World by the colonists of New England and 
Virginia alike. Distinct as were the social classes, the barri- Class bar- 
ers between them were not impassable. The sons of yeomen impassable. 
and merchants might, and often did, as the result of their 
own achievements or those of their fathers, become gentle- 



lO THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 

men; on the other hand, the younger sons of the landed 
gentry sometimes became city merchants. In this respect, 
as in many others, English society was freer than that of 
France, Spain, or Germany. It must never be forgotten, 
either, that England was then the only important Euro- 
pean nation with an efficient system of national repre- 
sentation. 

The An essential part of EngUsh life was the national church. 

chii°^! In the Middle Ages, England had been united with the rest 

of western and central Europe in the great Catholic Church 
of which the Roman Pope was the visible head. Partly 
under the influence of the Protestant Reformation on the 
European continent, partly from personal and political 
motives on the part of the Tudor sovereigns and their minis- 
ters, and partly as the result of a nationalistic movement 
against foreign control, England had lately broken away 
from the Church of Rome and reorganized its ecclesiastical 
constitution on national lines. In theory at least, every 
man born in England inherited the duty of loyalty to the 
church as he did that of loyalty to King and Parliament. 
Church and state were now more closely united than ever 
before. The King was the ''governor" of the church, under 
God; as such he appointed the bishops and other principal 
church officers. Parliament also had its share in the gov- 
ernment of the church; for theological tests and forms of 
worship, though framed by the clergy, were formally em- 
bodied in statute law. The freedom of the church was thus 
restricted, but these limitations were offset by some impor- 
tant privileges. The bishops sat in the House of Lords, and, 
in addition to the tithes charged upon the land, there were 
parish rates which all subjects were obliged to pay. No 
other religious body had any legal standing. Those who 
professed other forms of religion were subjected to various 
legal disadvantages or penalties, and all men were required 
to attend the services of the established church. 



CHURCH AND STATE II 

Nearly everyone agreed that there should be a state The 

church, that it was the business oi the state to support and gyste^^ 

defend the true kind of Christianity. Englishmen differed Episcopal 

... government, 

widely, however, as to wliat true Christianity was and how 

the church ought to be governed. Generally speaking, the 
policy of the government and of those who controlled the 
church after the separation from Rome was to keep as far 
as possible the old usages. The church was to be governed 
as before by bishops and archbishops; there was to be as 
little change as possible in doctrine; and the forms of serv- 
ice, though now spoken in English instead of in Latin, were 
taken with some changes and additions from the service 
books of the medieval church. 

There were, however, two classes of Englishmen who Roman 
were not satisfied with these arrangements. Many conserva- Catholics, 
tive people still opposed the separation from Rome and 
regarded the Pope as the supreme head of the church. They 
looked back with affection to the imposing ceremonial of 
the old days and regretted the changes which had been made 
in ritual and in doctrine. At the opposite extreme were 
the radical Protestants, or Puritans, who had been much Puritans, 
influenced by Calvin and other leaders of the Reformation 
on the Continent. To them the Roman Church seemed 
utterly corrupt and they believed that the Church of Eng- 
land ought to be made a thoroughly Protestant institu- 
tion. Not all Puritans held the same opinions, but in 
general they stood for what they considered a simpler and 
more Biblical form of religion with fewer forms and cere- 
monies and more emphasis on preaching. Though still 
for the most part laymen or clergymen in the established 
church, they were usually not in sympathy with the ex- 
isting episcopal system of government and wished either to 
reduce the pov/er of the bishops or to abolish it altogether, 
substituting a representative system like that advocated by 
Calvin and the Presbyterians of Scotland. 



12 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



Conformity 
enforced by 
the state. 



Puritans and 
Separatists. 



English 
civilization 
in 1606. 



In organizing tlie Church of England efforts were made 
to conciliate both these opposing parties and find a middle 
way in which all could walk together; but in the end every- 
one was expected to conform to the established system. 
When James I came to the throne there was some hope that 
he might show more sympathy with the Puritans; but 
these expectations were disappointed, and a severely repres- 
sive policy was adopted. Toward the Catholics, James 
was personally more conciliatory, partly because he wished 
to cultivate friendly relations with Spain, then the leading 
Catholic power. The discovery of a Catholic conspiracy, 
however, and the intense popular feeling against the Roman 
Church led to more or less ntful persecution of its members 
during the early years of American colonization. 

Though nearly all Englishmen believed in an established 
church, including most of the Puritans, who wished to 
transform the church or even to be let alone in it rather than 
to withdraw altogether, there v/ere small Puritan congrega- 
tions here and there v/hich felt quite differently. They 
were soon divided into various sects, but in general they 
believed that the Church of England was so thoroughly 
corrupt that all truly Biblical Christians must separate from 
it. Instead of wishing to establish a national state church, 
they believed that each local congregation of true believers 
should be self-governing, choosing its own ministers and 
other officers. In 1606 this party was too small to exert 
much influence, but every measure which made it more 
difficult for Puritans to remain in the church without giving 
up their convictions increased the number and influence 
of the "Separatist" element. 

The civilization of England at this period was in some 
respects lower and in some respects, perhaps, higher than 
that of the present time. In contrivances for controlling 
natural forces and increasing physical comfort, even the 
wealthiest classes were not able to command what is easily 




Facing 13 



CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE 



13 



within the reach of the ordinary man to-day. Indeed, the 

seventeenth century was in this respect worse off than the 

later Roman Empire. Government was less careful then 

than now to protect the life and property of the citizen 

against arbitrary treatment. Distinctions of rank also 

interfered seriously with the progress of the humbler classes. 

The idea that the state was bound to provide free education Education. 

for all the children of the community would have seemed 

quite strange in that day, and the church was much more 

important in this field. Education was the privilege of a 

comparatively small group. 

Nevertheless, it is easy to overemphasize these deficien- 
cies. The great universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with 
their rich endowments built up by the gifts of liberal men 
and women through many generations, were on the whole 
well adapted to the training of churchmen, scholars, and 
statesmen. Endowments for schools were common during the 
Middle Ages, and interest was stimulated by the scholars of 
the Renaissance period. In the early years of the seventeenth 
century many parishes had schools of their own, supported 
by endowments or public contributions or by a combina- 
tion of these methods, and the somewhat meager records at 
hand indicate a rapid decrease in the rate of illiteracy. 
Among the ruling classes there was, perhaps, a keener intel- 
lectual life than at the present time. The great awakening 
which began with the Italian Renaissance reached its height 
in England at the close of the sixteenth century; the names 
of Bacon in science and Shakespeare in literature are hard 
to match in any time. The fact that Shakespeare was the 
most popular dramatist of his age suggests that the average 
playgoer may have stood on at least as high a level of taste 
and intelligence as his present-day successor. 

During the Tudor period the international position of 
England had been greatly strengthened. After the demoral- 
izing and weakening Wars of the Roses, the resources and 



Intellectual 
life. 



Internaticnal 
relations 



14 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



Spain and 
England. 



Anglo-Span- 
ish rivalry 
in the New 
World. 



power of the kingdom had been gradually built up by the 
Tudor sovereigns, three of whom — Henry VII, Henry 
VIII, and Elizabeth — were rulers of exceptional ability. 
Under Henry VIII, England began again to take a promi- 
nent part in European politics, though not always success- 
fully, for she had powerful rivals. Of all these rivals the most 
powerful was the Spanish monarchy, which was consoli- 
dated under Ferdinand and Isabella in the last quarter of 
the fifteenth century and gradually acquired a series of 
dependencies in central Europe, including the Netherlands. 
Through the discoveries and conquests of Columbus and 
his successors, the gold and silver of the New World were 
brought into the Spanish treasury, and the Spanish army 
and navy became the most powerful in Europe, During a 
large part of the sixteenth century the relations of England 
and Spain were friendly, Henr}^ VIII's first queen was the 
Spanish princess, Catherine of Aragon, Their daughter. 
Queen Mary, was the wife of Philip II of Spain, who after 
her death proposed to marry her successor, Elizabeth. 
The proposal was rejected; but for many years after- 
wards the English government kept on tolerable terms 
with Spain, partly to protect itself against a possible com- 
bination of the French with Elizabeth's rival, Mary, Queen 
of Scots. 

Gradually, however, the two countries drifted into war. 
One factor in this change was the rising feeling of Protestant 
England against the Catholic Spaniards who were more or 
less involved in the conspiracies against Queen Elizabeth. 
When the Dutch Protestants rebelled against the attempts 
of Philip II to enforce the Catholic system upon themi, 
the English government, which has alwa3^s been keenly 
interested in the Netherlands, intervened in favor of the 
Dutch, at first secretly and then more openly. Most im- 
portant of all was the refusal of English seamen to acknowl- 
edge the Spanish monopoly of colonization and trade in 



INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. 15 

the New World. Daring adventurers like John Hawkins 
and Francis Drake persisted in carrying on this forbidden 
trade and, when attacked by the Spaniards, began a sort 
of private war in which Spanish-American ports were plun- 
dered and Spanish treasure ships captured on the high 
seas. Though professing disapproval of these exploits, the 
Queen often connived at them and shared in the profits, 
until finally the pretense of peaceful relations had to be aban- 
doned. In 1588, after years of preparation, Philip II sent The 
his "Invincible Armada" against England; but the great Aiwda.^ 
seamen who were so largely responsible for brmging on the 
war also brought about the decisive defeat of the Armada. 
England's supremacy on the seas was not yet established, 
but its foundations were laid at this time. The war lingered 
on during the last years of Elizabeth's reign; but when 
James I came to the throne, a treaty of peace was made 
and the King afterwards tried to arrange an alliance through 
the marriage of his son with a Spanish princess. This mar- 
riage project failed, however, and the attitude of the average 
Englishman toward Spain became one of habitual antagonism 
and distrust. Meantime as a result of the temporary union 
of Spain with Portugal, the Portuguese possessions in Asia 
were also involved and Anglo-Spanish rivalry was extended 
to the Far East. 

During this period, France was a much less serious rival France and 
than Spain. While Ferdinand and Isabella were consoli- ^^^^ • 
dating the Spanish kingdom, a similar work was being done 
in France by the great Louis XI and his successors; but 
French progress toward unity was seriously checked by the 
so-called "religious wars," which, though originating in the 
conflict between Protestants and Catholics, were complicated 
by economic factors and by the desire of the nobles to recover 
something of their old independence. The English people 
sympathized with the Huguenots, or French Protestants, as 
they had with the Dutch; and from time to time Elizabeth 



i6 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



Italy and 
Germany. 



Thirty 
Years' War. 



supported them in a half-hearted way. By the end of her 
reign the Huguenot leader, Henry of Navarre, had become 
King of France (Henry IV), tliough at the price of chang- 
ing his religion. Protestantism was to be tolerated, but 
the Catholic Church was recognized as the official church 
of France. Under Henry IV, France again began to go 
forward; but when he was assassinated in 1610, there was 
another period of disorder and weakness. At last, however, 
there came to the front in 1624, the great cardinal-statesman, 
Richelieu, who raised the power of the King and the central 
government to a higher point than ever before, thus enabling 
France to supersede Spain as the strongest nation in Europe. 
Across central Europe from south to north lay two coun- 
tries, Italy and Germany, which, though taking the lead 
in the great intellectual movements of the Renaissance and 
exerting an important influence on the art and literature of 
other countries, were crippled politically by internal divisions. 
Italy had long been broken up into a number of petty states, 
almost constantly at odds with each other, and it was fre- 
quently the battleground of foreign armies. In Germany a 
reform party tried to secure a unified national government 
like those of England, Spain, and France; but the move- 
ment failed, partly because of the mutual jealousies of the 
various principalities, and partly because at a critical time the 
Germans were further divided by the Protestant Reform.a- 
tion into two great religious parties. In 1618, two years be- 
fore the Pilgrim colonists sailed for America, this religious 
antagonism, complicated by sordid interests of various kinds, 
flamed up in the terrible Thirty Years' War, which completed 
the demoralization of Germany. In medieval times, the 
German cities had played a great part in international trade; 
but they were now seriously handicapped in competition 
with other nations whose governments were better able to 
protect and advance the interests of their subjects. Thus 
hopelessly divided, neither Italy nor Germany was able to 



INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 1 7 

win territory in the New World. The unhappy condition 
of Germany contributed in a more positive way to American 
colonial history, since it led a large number of Germans 
during the next hundred years to become colonists under 
the British crown. 

On the shores of the Baltic England had trade relations The Baltic 
of some importance with Russia and the Scandinavian coun- 
tries, upon which she depended especially for "naval stores," 
including lumber, pitch, and tar. Important as these ar- 
ticles were to the English navy and merchant marine, the 
trade was liable to disturbance by unfriendly regulations 
and the chances of war. Englishmen v/ere therefore deeply 
interested in finding other sources of supply, as they presently 
did in the New World. The Scandinavian countries were 
now Protestant; both Denmark and Sweden took an active 
part in favor of the Protestant party in the Thirty Years' 
War. Besides their common sympathy with Protestantism, 
England and Denmark were at this time somewhat drawn 
together by the marriage of James I with a Danish princess. 

The most serious trade competitors of the English were Holland, 
the Dutch. During the latter part of the sixteenth century, 
they secured not only independence of Spain but also impor- 
tant conquests in the Far East at the e:cpense of Spain and 
Portugal, then temporarily united under Philip II. In 
their navy, their mercantile marine, and their business 
methods, the Dutch took the lead among the European 
peoples. Among their citizens in the seventeenth century 
were some of the leading scholars of Europe, including Hugo 
Grotius, sometimes called the father of international law; 
the Dutch school of painters, with such men as Hals 
and Rembrandt, was famous all over Europe. Politically 
the Dutch provinces were organized in a loose federal re- 
public dominated by the wealthy merchants; but they 
generally chose as their military head a prince of the Plouse 
of Orange. In religion the Dutch were for the most part 



i8 



THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE 



Influence of 
the Dutch. 



Chief rivals 
of England. 



followers of Calvin and radical Protestants; though under 
the leadership of such men as William the Silent they 
allowed more religious liberty than any other European 
country. 

The relations of England with Holland were particularly 
close. During the period of Spanish rule, Dutch Protes- 
tants found refuge in England and helped to develop the 
manufactures of their adopted country. The sending of 
English troops to the Netherlands during the Dutch war for 
independence furnished military training to a number of 
officers who afterwards used their experience in the New 
World. Englishmen studied the business methods of the 
Dutch, and their portraits were painted by Dutch artists. 
In matters of religion, the English Puritans were much 
influenced by their neighbors; and when troubled by per- 
secution many of them found refuge in the hospitable Dutch 
cities. Though the English and the Dutch were drawn 
together as Protestants by a common hostiHty to the Catholic 
power of Spain, their commercial interests tended to drive 
them apart. During the seventeenth century they were 
competitors for trade not only in Europe but in Asia, Africa, 
and America. Though nominally at peace with each other 
during the greater part of this century, and sometimes 
political alhes, they now and then came to blows. Gradually 
the English gained on the Dutch, until by the end of the 
century the latter were left far behind in the race for com- 
mercial supremacy. 

When the Enghshmen of 1606 faced the great contest 
for the possession of North America, the Spaniards seemed 
their most formidable rivals. Then as the century ad- 
vanced, Dutch competition was for a time the most serious. 
Gradually, however, Spain and Holland declined in relative 
importance, while France became not only the leading 
European power, but the chief competitor of England in 
the contest for world supremacy. 



ENGLAND AND HER CHIEF RIVALS 



19 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

(For general plan and abbreviation of titles most 
frequently used, see page ix) 

Cheyney, E. P., European Background of American History, 
especially chs. VII-XVI. Hayes, C. J. H., Political and Social 
History of Europe, I. Abbott, W. C, Expansion of Europe, I, 
chs. XII-XVI. 

Cross, A. L., History of England and Greater Britain, chs. 
XXVI-XXXV, especially chs. XXVI ("Elizabethan England") 
and XXXV ("Puritan and CavaUer England"). Cambridge 
Modern History, II, ch. XVI; and III, chs. IX, X. Creighton, M., 
Age of Elizabeth, with Gardiner, S. R., Puritan Revolution. Seeley, 
J. R., Growth of British Policy, I, pts. I, II. Details of poUtical 
history in volumes by Pollard and Montague in Hunt, W., and 
Poole, R., Political History of England. 

Channing, United States, I, 143-150. Cimningham, W., 
Growth of English Indtistry and Commerce in Modern Times, I. 
Ashley, W. J., English Economic History, II, chs. III-V. Cheyney, 
E. P., History of England {i 588-1603), I, pt. III. Usher, A. P., 
Introduction to the Industrial History of England, especially chs. 
IV, VIII. 

Cheyney, England, I, pt. I. Maitland, F. W., Constitutional 
History of England, Period II, 226-236 (Law) and Period III. 
{Cambridge Modern History, HI, ch. XXII, "Political Thought," 
by Figgis). Channing, United States, I, 421-426 (Local govern- 
ment.) Adams, G. B., Constitutional History of England, chs. X, £f. 

Jusserand, J. J., Literary History of the English People, II, 
bk. V, ch. I. Trevelyan, G. M., England under -the Stuarts, chs. 
I-III. Onions, C. T., editor, Shakespeare's England. Traill, 
Social England, HI, ch. XII; and IV, ch. XIII. 

Harrison, W., Description of England in Hohnshed's Chronicles; 
partly reprinted in New Shakespeare Society Publications, series 
VI, and in Withington, L., Elizabethan England {Camelot Series); 
extracts in Hart, Contemporaries, I, 145-152. Smith, Sir T., 
De Republica Anglorum (edited by L. Alston), valuable account 
of the Tudor government. 



European 
background. 
World 
politics. 



English 
background. 



Economic 
history. 



Government, 
law, 

political 
ideals. 



English 
society. 



Contempo- 
rary 
accounts. 



Spain and 
the New 
World. 



Portuguese 
enterprise. 



The "Papal 
Meridian." 



CHAPTER n 
THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 

Keeping the Old World background always in mind, we 
must now try to see the New World, not as we nov/ know it, 
but as it appeared to a well-informed seventeenth-century 
Englishman. 

More than a hundred years had passed since in 1493 
Christopher Columbus came back from his heroic journey 
across the mysterious ocean to announce that he had found 
a new route around the world to the lands and people of 
the Far East. The later voyages of Columbus and his 
successors gradually made it clear that he had found not 
a new route to the Far East, but a new world. By a strange 
fate, this New World soon received not the name of its 
greatest pioneer, but that of one of his lesser contemporaries, 
Americus Vespucius, a Florentine navigator who explored 
much of the coast of South America, the first part of the 
New World that was recognized as a previously unknown 
continent. Columbus, like Americus Vespucius and so 
many other great explorers of his time, was an Italian; 
but his voyages had been made under the auspices of the 
Spanish government, which at once set up its claim to 
sovereignty in the Western Hemisphere. The voyages of 
Columbus to "the Indies" aroused the jealousy of the 
Portuguese, whose daring seamen had made their v/ay down 
the western coast of Africa and around the Cape of Good 
Hope to the Indian Ocean, and the Pope was called upon 
to decide the dispute. This resulted in the "papal line of 
demarcation," first fixed in 1493 one hundred leagues west of 



SPANISH ACHIEVEMENTS 21 

the Cape Verde Islands but changed in 1494 at the request 
of Portugal so as to run two hundred and seventy leagues 
farther westward. The new line was found to cut across 
the western part of South America, and so Brazil be- 
came Portuguese rather than Spanish. The effect of the 
Pope's decision was to put the whole Western Hemi- 
sphere, excepting Brazil, within Spain's "sphere of influ- 
ence." At that time all the nations of western and central 
Europe were loyal to the Pope, and the Spaniards thus 
gained a substantial advantage in the occupation of America. 
Excepting the Portuguese settlement in Brazil, the Spaniards 
had the only permanent colonies in America for more than 
a hundred years. 

During those hundred years the Spaniards achieved Spanish 
some remarkable results. They began with the ex-plora- ments; 
tion and colonization of the islands in the Caribbean Sea — exploration. 
Cuba, Haiti, Porto Rico, Jamaica, and some of the lesser 
islands. Then came settlements on and near the Isthmus 
of Panama, from which the daring adventurer, Balboa, 
caught in 1513 his first glimpse of the Pacific Ocean. Still 
searching, like Columbus, for the rich islands of eastern 
Asia, Magellan, a Portuguese sailor in the employ of Spain, 
sailed in 15 19 down the coast of South America, through the 
Strait of Magellan, and out into the Pacific. Though Ma- 
gellan himself was killed in the Philippines, one of his ships 
completed the first journey around the globe in 1522; and 
it was realized as never before that America was a new 
world. During the sixteenth century, the Spaniards ex- 
plored not only the coasts of South and Central America, 
but pushed up the Pacific coast of North America as far as 
Oregon. On the Atlantic side, they explored the northern 
shore of the Gulf of Mexico, rounded the peninsula of Florida, 
and sailed up the North Atlantic coast as far as Nova Scotia. 

Nor were the Spaniards explorers only. From the coloni- Spanish 
zation of the West Indies, they passed on to the occupation '^^ °^^ *^°' 



22 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



Spanish 
America. 



Spain's 
efforts in 
North 
America. 



of the mainland. The conquests of Cortes m Mexico and 
Pizarro in Peru were both accomplished within fifty years 
after the first voyage of Columbus in 1492. These conquests 
enriched the adventurous conquerors and then: followers, and 
made possible the great treasure fleets which in the days of 
Philip II crossed the ocean with gold and silver for the service 
of the Spanish crown. In 1574, there were in the New World 
about two hundred Spanish towns with a European popu- 
lation of more than a hundred and fifty thousand, ruling 
over perhaps five millions of civilized or partly civilized 
Indians, a large proportion of whom were practically serfs. 
Partly as a remedy for the evils of Indian slavery, negro 
slaves were imported from Africa in large numbers, espe- 
cially for the West Indian Islands. Much has been said 
about the Spaniard's greed for gold and his cruelty to the 
Indians; but in the former respect, Frenchmen and English- 
men, though less successful in their search, were not far 
behind the Spaniard. In their treatment of the Indians, 
the Spanish conquerors, from Columbus down, were often 
cruel and treacherous; but in their efforts to give the na- 
tives some kind of Christian civilization, they were more 
persistent and successful than the French or the English. 
Unlike the English colonists, before whom the Indians 
gradually disappeared, the Spaniards established commu- 
nities in which Europeans and Indians have for three and 
a half centuries been able to live in tolerable relations. 

Fortunately for their English rivals, the Spaniards were 
so much occupied with exploiting the rich resources of Central 
and South America, that their colonization scarcely touched 
that part of North America which is now the United States. 
Nevertheless, some attempts were made both in the East 
and in the West. In 1521 the picturesque adventurer, Ponce 
de Leon, lost his life in an unsuccessful effort to found a 
colony in Florida, and in 1526 the Spaniards came near 
preempting the territory afterwards occupied by Virginia 



SPAIN IN NORTH AMERICA 23 

and North Carolina. In that year Ayllon, a Spanish of&cer 
from Santo Domingo, planted a colony called San Miguel 
on the Carolina coast. Ayllon died, however, and his 
colony was abandoned. 

During the next fifteen years, two striking attempts were 
made to match in North America the brilliant achievements 
of Cortes in Mexico. One such attempt was made by Nar- 
vaez, an unsuccessful rival of Cortes; in 1527 he set out Narvaez. 
with a royal grant covering the northern coast of the Gulf. 
His purpose was conquest, but he carried with him a con- 
siderable number of colonists, including some women. The 
attempt at colonization failed completely. Narvaez with 
a section of his company made his way painfully along the 
coast, partly by land and partly by sea, toward Mexico. 
He finally perished somewhere on the coast of Texas and 
only a handful of his men were able to reach Mexico. A few 
years later (i 539-1 542) De Soto, who had distinguished ^^ ^oto. 
himself with Pizarro in Peru and had later been made 
governor of Cuba, repeated the unlucky enterprise of Nar- 
vaez with similar results. For three years he wandered 
about in the Gulf region. He saw ''the great river," Mis- Discovery 
sissippi, now for the first time definitely described, crossed Mississippi 
it somewhere near the site of Memphis, Tennessee, and then ^^^'^• 
marched across the plains of Arkansas. Worn out by con- 
stant Indian warfare and hardships of every kind, the high- 
spirited leader perished and was buried by his followers 
in the Mississippi. The survivors went down the river 
and then by sea to Mexico. The expeditions of Narvaez 
and De Soto make a stirring chapter of American adven- 
ture, and they did something to extend geographical knowl- 
edge; but they are of slight importance in the founding of 
the American nation. 

Notwithstanding their lack of success in North America, 
the Spaniards maintained their claim to it and regarded all 
others as trespassers. This attitude is best illustrated by 



24 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



Florida. 



Spanish 
exploration 
in the 
Southwest. 



New Mexico 
and Texas. 



France in 

North 

America. 



Breton 
fishermen. 



their treatment of a French Huguenot colony, begun in 1564 
on the St. Johns River in northern Florida. It was attacked 
in 1565 by a Spanish force under Menendez and entirely 
destroyed. As a means of holding the country, Menendez 
built the fort of St. Augustine, out of which presently de- 
veloped the feeble colony of Florida. 

In the southwest, the Spaniards fared somewhat better. 
Through the courage, energy, and constructive ability of 
Cortes, the Aztecs were conquered between 15 19 and 15 21, 
and Mexico became a Spanish province. From this vantage 
point, explorers, soldiers, and missionaries pushed out in 
various directions. One survivor of Narvaez's unlucky 
expedition made his way to Mexico and on the strength 
of stories told him by the Indians, gave his countrymen 
exaggerated ideas of rich northern cities. The Franciscan, 
Friar Marcos, who was sent by the viceroy to investigate, 
brought back a report which made a similar impression. 
So in 1540 a great expedition was sent out under Coronado 
which spent about two years exploring Arizona, New Mexico, 
and the great plains beyond as far as the present state of 
Kansas. Coronado's expedition was less tragic than that of 
De Soto, but its immediate results were not great. The 
serious colonization of New Mexico began about sixty years 
later; still later enterprises, especially those of Catholic 
missionaries, carried a measure of Spanish civilization be- 
yond the Rio Grande into Texas. Two centuries passed, 
however, before those western outposts had any vital signifi- 
cance for English-speaking people. 

Meantime, other European powers had not been entirely 
frightened off by the papal bull. Almost continuously 
during the sLxteenth century, European fishermen of various 
nationalities, including Frenchmen from Brittany and Nor- 
mandy, made voyages across the Atlantic to the fishing 
grounds off the coast of Newfoundland. In 1524 an Italian 
named Verrazano explored a considerable part of the Atlantic 



FRENCH PIONEERS 25 

seaboard of the United States, probably under the authority 
of the French government, and French names began to 
appear on the maps of North America. King Francis I of 
France was a jealous rival of the Emperor Charles V, who 
was also King of Spain; he was therefore not unwilling to 
poach upon the latter's preserves. In 1534, he sent out 
Jacques Cartier, of the same province of Brittany from Carder, 
which so many seamen had gone out to the Newfoundland 
fisheries. Cartier entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1534 The French 
and in a second expedition of 1535 he followed the St. st.Lawrence. 
Lawrence River to the Lachine Rapids just above the present 
city of Montreal. In 1 541-1542, the French made a serious 
attempt to plant a colony on the St. Lawrence, with a noble- 
man named Roberval as viceroy and Cartier as commander 
of the fleet. The two leaders failed to act harmoniously, 
and the colony was soon abandoned. 

After the death of Francis I, the religious dissensions in Carolina and 
France grew more serious and some of the Protestant leaders, ^'^^'l^^- 
including Coligny, conceived the idea of a French colony 
in America, partly as a patriotic enterprise and partly as 
a refuge for Protestants. After an unlucky venture in 
Brazil, two attempts were made on the North American 
coast. The first in 1562, at Port Royal in what is now South 
Carolina, was almost immediately abandoned; the destruc- 
tion of the post on the St. Johns by the Spaniards has 
already been mentioned. In 1606 the French hold on North 
America was of the slightest sort. Besides the fishermen 
who went back and forth from France to Newfoundland, 
there was one struggling little colony which had been planted 
in 1604 on St. Croix Island near the present boundary 
between Canada and the United States, but was soon 
transferred to Port Royal in Acadia, now Nova Scotia. 

The obstacles to English occupation so far set up on the England's 
Atlantic seaboard of North America were evidently few °PP°''t^^ity. 
and weak. Over the whole continent Spam had posted a 



26 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



The Cabot 
voyages. 



Bristol 
merchants. 



English 
interest in 
America. 



warning against intruders and her European power still 
made her a formidable rival; but between the equally 
feeble colonies of Spain in Florida and the French in Acadia 
the continent was still open. In the meantime English- 
men, though backward, had already shown in various ways 
their appreciation of the opportunities which the New World 
offered. 

Before his first voyage to America, Columbus had made 
some overtures to King Henry VII of England which came 
to nothing; but shortly after the discoveries of Columbus 
became known, Henry took an important step which be- 
came the foundation of England's claim to sovereignty in 
North America. In 1496, a Venetian navigator, John Cabot, 
applied to the King for authority to make discoveries in 
the eastern, western, and northern seas, partty at least in the 
hope of finding the Spice Islands of the Far East. Henry VII 
gave him the desired patent and in 1497 Cabot crossed the 
Atlantic, making land somewhere north of New England — 
just where has never been finally decided. The next year he 
made a second voyage, from which he probably never re- 
turned. These expeditions were followed by trading and 
colonizing charters to Bristol merchants, who seem to have 
gone on voyages to Newfoundland during the early years 
of the sixteenth century. No ' important results followed 
from these enterprises at the time, but for the next two cen- 
turies and a half the Cabot discoveries were made the start- 
ing point of almost every argument for English dominion 
in North America. 

For many years afterwards, English interest in America 
was kept alive chiefly by the fishermen who frequented the 
coast of Newfoundland. Gradually, however, other inter- 
ests began to develop. One of the chronicles collected by 
the geographer Hakluyt tells of visits made to Brazil in 
the reign of Henry VIII by William Hawkins of Plymouth, 
"one of the principall sea Captaines in the West partes of 



ELIZABETHAN SEAMEN 27 

England in his time," who was "not contented with the 
short voyages commonly then made only to the knowen 
coastes of Europe." He brought with him on a return voyage 
an Indian chief who made a great impression on the King 
and all the nobility. Shortly before Elizabeth's accession to 
the throne, there appeared the first books printed in England 
on the American discoveries, and during the early years of 
her reign there was a great stirring of interest in American 
affairs. 

One important factor in bringing about this result was Elizabethan 
the slave trade, and the most striking figure in the early 
development of that trade was Captain John Hawkins. 
Like other conspicuous seamen of that day, Hawkins was Hawkins, 
an ardent English patriot and Protestant, as well as a daring 
fighter. Though England and Spain were nominally at 
peace, he regarded the Catholic Spaniards in the New 
World as fair prey; and while genuinely religious, his con- 
science was not troubled by the traffic in human beings. 
The character of his enterprises may be illustrated by his 
own story of certain voyages made in 1567 and 1568. By 
various means he gathered on the Guinea coast of Africa 
a cargo of four or five hundred slaves with which he sailed 
to the Spanish colonies in the West Indies and on the southern 
shores of the Gulf of Mexico. It was the policy of Spain 
to keep the trade with her colonies strictly to herself, and 
orders to this effect had been given to the colonial officials. 
Nevertheless, many Spanish colonists were glad of a chance 
to buy from the English; and so in. many places, Hawkins 
had "reasonable trade and courteous entertainment." 
Elsewhere he was less fortunate and the opportunity for 
trade had to be fought for. At last, at Vera Cruz, Mexico, 
he was attacked by a Spanish fleet and barely escaped 
after the loss of his famous ship, the Jesus. 

An associate of Hawkins in this voyage was Francis Francis 
Drake, the most famous of the Elizabethan sea dogs. Like ^^ ^' 




Section of the "Wright-Hakltjtt" Map (an En 




OP THE North-Atlantic World in the Year 1600) 



30 THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 

Hawkins, Drake was a Plymouth man, brought up in an 
atmosphere of aggressive English Protestantism. After the 
fight at Vera Cruz, Drake took the lead in the irregular 
warfare between Englishmen and Spaniards in America. 
His voyages were in part business undertakings to enrich 
himself and his men; but he also thought of them as battles 
in a legitimate warfare against the enemies of Protestant 
England. In 1572 he led a daring, almost reckless, raid on 
the Spanish settlement of Nombre de Dios on the Isthmus 
of Panama. In 1577 he began his famous voyage around the 
world by following the eastern coast of South America to 
the Strait of Magellan. Then, after breaking up a mutiny 
Drake's by the execution of its chief leaders, he went on, like Magel- 

the war with l^n, into the Pacific. During the last months of 1578, he 
Spam. sailed up the Pacific coast, plundering Spanish towns and 

treasure ships on a magnificent scale. He had now stirred 
up too many hornets' nests to retrace his route in safety 
and so, after advancing northward along the California 
coast, he turned westward across the Pacific and through 
the Spice Islands to the Indian Ocean, returning to England 
in November, 1580, three years after his departure from 
Plymouth. Six years later, he captured the town of Santo 
Domingo in the West Indies, sacked the rich and powerful 
city of Cartagena on the Spanish Main, and temporarily 
broke up tlie Spanish settlement of St. Augustine. In these 
enterprises skill and reckless courage had been so wonder- 
fully combined that the Spaniards quite naturally came to 
think of Drake as a magician in league with the devil. Natu- 
rally enough also, Elizabeth, with all her evasions, was not 
able to cool the rising anger of Phihp II. The exploits of 
Hawkins and Drake had their logical result in the Spanish 
'Armada of 1588, and its defeat meant the breakdown of 
Spanish monopoly in the New World. 

It was through the voyages of these great seamen that 
Englishmen generally first became interested in America. 



RICHARD HAKLUYT 3 1 

In the spirit of Drake and Hawkins, they thought of America 
as one of the great sources of Spanish power and the region 
where that power could most effectually be attacked. An 
important influence in spreading these ideas and keeping 
Englishmen informed about American affairs was Richard Hakluyt, the 
Hakluyt, a clergyman of the Anglican Church but best geographer, 
remembered as the leading geographer of Elizabethan 
England. From his boyhood up, he was an enthusiastic 
student of geography, and in 1582, two years after Drake's 
voyage around the world, he published a volume contain- 
ing accounts of voyages to America, In 1589, the year 
after the defeat of the Armada, he published his great work, 
The Principall Navigations, Voiages, and Discoveries of the 
English Nation, which was issued in an enlarged edition in 
1 598-1600, and has ever since been a great storehouse of 
information on the achievements of the Elizabethan seamen 
and the beginnings of English expansion. Some copies of the 
later edition included the map here partly reproduced 
(pages 28, 29). In 1584, he wrote A Discourse on Western Motives of 
Planting, in which he argued that the establishment of colonkation. 
English posts between Florida and Cape Breton would make 
it easier to attack Philip's fleets and menace his American 
power. "If you touche him in the Indies, you touch the 
apple of his eye; for take away his treasure, which is nerviis 
belli, and which he hath almoste oute of his West Indies, his international 
olde bandes of soldiers will soone be dissolved, his purposes "^^ ^' 
defeated, his power and strengthe diminished, his pride 
abated, and his tyranie utterly suppressed." 

Other motives, however, were at work to interest English- America and 
men in colonization. America was valued not only for ^ ° '^^' 
itself but as a stage in the journey toward India and the 
Spice Islands of the farther East. This was the hope 
of Columbus, Cabot, and Magellan in the first period of 
American discovery; it was also prominent in the minds of 
English and French explorers in the seventeenth century. 



32 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



The search 
for gold 
and silver. 



Theories 
of com- 
merce and 
colonization. 



The width of North America was not yet appreciated and 
there was constant searching for a passage through. At 
different times the St. Lawrence River, the Hudson, and 
Chesapeake Bay awakened hopes of a waterway to the 
Pacific, by means of which Englishmen might share in the 
rich trade of the East, which was dominated in succession 
by the Portuguese and the Dutch. Gradually, however, 
the American and East Indian enterprises were separated 
from each other and America was sought more largely for 
itself. The success of the Spaniards in finding gold and 
silver also made a great impression on Englishmen. Their 
seamen had enriched tliemselves by seizing the products of 
the Spanish mines, but they hoped also for mines of their 
own. The first American charters commonly assumed that 
gold and silver were likely to be found, and a fixed propor- 
tion, usually one fifth, was reserved to the King. Early 
colonial promoters were also quite insistent that mines 
should be found, but the actual yield was small. 

The emphasis laid upon gold and silver was in accordance 
with the general economic theories of the time, which 
measured the wealth of a nation largely by its store of precious 
metals. It was desirable to own mines for this purpose; 
but if mines were not available, gold and silver might also 
be secured from the producing countries by a proper regu- 
lation of trade. If England could sell its own products to 
foreigners in return for gold and silver and could then get 
on with a comparatively small importation of goods from 
abroad, the national treasure might be largely increased. 
In the opinion of seventeenth-century thinkers, England 
was much too dependent upon other European nations for 
essential articles of trade. Her spices, for instance, came to 
her largely through foreign middlemen — at first the Portu- 
guese and later the Dutch. There were important English 
fisheries, but much of the English supply was bought from 
foreign fishermen. Lumber, pitch, tar, and other naval 



MOTIVES FOR COLONIZATION 33 

stores were essential to the navy and merchant marme, but 
they were then secured largely from the Baltic countries. 
For all these things, English money had to be paid out to for- 
eign rivals. If, however, colonies, or perhaps better, trading Desire for 
posts, were founded in America this drain of the precious ^db^^ 
metals might be stopped. Fish might then be caught more posts- 
largely by English fishermen; naval stores might be bought 
from English colonists; and, instead of buying tropical prod- 
ucts from continental rivals, England might even have a 
surplus for export. 

It was expected that England's export trade would be Export trade 
developed in other ways. At first it was thought that the and shipping. 
Indians were comparatively civilized people who would 
demand, for instance, large amounts of European textiles 
for their clothing; but this was soon seen to be a delusion. 
Later, as Englishmen settled in the New World, it was hoped 
that their prosperity would enable them to buy largely from 
the mother country, especially English manufactures. Im- 
portant indhect advantages were also expected. The At- 
lantic fisheries should prove a training school for the hardy 
sailors upon whom depended the sea power of the nation, 
while export and import trade with the colonies would em- 
ploy profitably an increasing amount of merchant shipping. 

A common idea in the writings of that time was that of Colonies as 
colonization as a safety valve for undesirable population. ^^^^^^ 
The unemployed were to find employment; the unfortunate 
and criminal classes, who were burdensome and even danger- 
ous at home, were to take a fresh start in the New World. 
Probably few of these "submerged" people took the initiative 
in leaving home for America; they were more commonly 
sent by others as kidnaped children, indentured servants, and 
transported criminals. 

Contemporary statements often emphasize the missionary The 
motive. It was frequently mentioned in the charters and motive.^'^d- 
though the results of English missionary activity were pain- venture. 



34 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



Political and 

religious 

motives. 



Pioneer 
enterprises. 



Sir 

Humphrey 

Gilbert. 



fully slight, as compared with those accomplished by the 
Spaniards, there was after all some genuine feeling back 
of these plans; in every colony there were some men who 
did not forget their duty to the Indian. Naturally enough, 
however, the colonists failed to understand the natives, 
and in the pressure of self-interest and self-protection the 
missionary motive too often fell into the background. 
Simple love of adventure also played a large part, especially 
in the early stages of colonization. 

In most of these arguments for colonization, the point 
of view is that of the national interest. In the main, they 
are not so much appeals to colonists as to colonizers. In 
1606, few Englishmen looked upon America as a place where 
they themselves should personally engage in building up 
new commonwealths, where they could realize political and 
religious ideals not within reach at home. When, for instance, 
it was first suggested that Catholics might find a refuge 
from persecution in America, the proposal fell to the ground. 
Gradually, however, religious and political controversies 
created a discontented class which found its greatest oppor- 
tunity in the Puritan colonies of New England. 

With all the active interest in American affairs, not a 
single English colony was really established before the 
close of Elizabeth's reign. There had been, however, a few 
of those pioneer enterprises which, even in their failure, 
point the way to later and more successful ventures. The 
promoters of these enterprises were among the leaders in 
the national life — distinguished seamen, soldiers, and 
politicians. They were interested, of course, in their own 
personal profit, but they were also genuinely anxious to 
advance the welfare and prestige of the nation. Among 
these men, two stand out conspicuously. Sir Humphrey Gil- 
bert and Sir Walter Raleigh. 

Gilbert was a west-country gentleman, educated at 
Oxford, and an experienced soldier who had fought the 



GILBERT AND RALEIGH 35 

Spaniards in the Netherlands. Before his American ven- 
tures began, he had also been interested in the planting of 
Protestant colonies in Ireland. In his thinking about 
America the desire to find a northern passage to Asia played 
a prominent part, and with this in view, as well as the 
fisheries, he took a special interest in Newfoundland. At 
last in 1578 he received a patent from the Queen giving 
him the right to establish colonies in America and govern 
them, subject to the royal authority. After one unsuccess- 
ful voyage, Gilbert secured the cooperation of an associa- 
tion of merchants who took stock in the enterprise and 
were to share in the profits. He also worked out elaborate 
plans for the government of his proposed colony. After 
all these preparations, Gilbert set sail in 1583 for New- 
foundland and landed his settlers; but the colony soon 
broke up, and on his return voyage he was lost at sea. 

On Gilbert's death his enterprises were taken up by his sir Walter 
half brother. Sir Walter Raleigh. Raleigh's personality, ^^1°^^* 
still more than that of Gilbert, brings the American move- 
ment into relation with the main currents of English national 
life. He was one of the most brilliant figures at the court 
of Queen Elizabeth and throughout his career a vigorous 
champion of the anti-Spanish party. In 1584 he also secured 
a patent for American colonization, and after sending an 
exploring expedition which landed on the coast of North 
Carolina he took up the work of actual settlement, sending 
out in 1585 a fleet with nearly two hundred prospective 
colonists. 

The commander of the fleet was Sir Richard Grenville, Sir Richard 
a daring sea-fighter whose heroic death six years later on the ^^^"^^ ^' 
Revenge, in battle with the Spaniards against heavy odds, is 
one of the most stirring episodes in English naval history. 
Nearly three hundred years afterwards, Tennyson in his 
spirited ballad of The Revenge retold the story of the 
man who 



36 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



"had holden the power and glory of Spain so cheap 
That he dared her with one Uttle ship and his English few." 



The 

Roanoke 

colony. 



InCTeasing 
knowledge 
of North 
America. 



This first Raleigh colony, having landed on Roanoke 
Island, spent there the autumn of 1585 and the winter and 
spring of 1586. Discouraged by the failure of their search 
for treasure, the hostility of the Indians, and the scarcity 
of food, the colonists returned to England in July, 1586, 
with one of Drake's returning fleets. They had hardly left 
Roanoke Island, when Grenville came back with supplies 
and new recruits who remained on the island after his 
departure. Undismayed by the first failure, Raleigh sent 
out a second expedition in 1587 which, after calling at Roa- 
noke Island for the colonists there, was intended to settle 
in Chesapeake Bay. Before they arrived at the island, 
Grenville's settlers had disappeared, but in spite of Raleigh's 
directions the new colonists were kept at Roanoke. John 
White, the governor of this colony, soon returned to England, 
which he found on the eve of invasion by the Spanish Ar- 
mada. In the strain and excitement of the next three years, 
the Roanoke colony, though not wholly forgotten by Ra- 
leigh, was left to its own devices, and in 1591, when WTiite 
returned there, he found no trace of it. This was Raleigh's 
last important enterprise in North America. Under King 
James I he was condemned for alleged treason, imprisoned 
in the Tower of London for thirteen years, and finally ex- 
ecuted. Though he had himself no part in the final settle- 
ment of Virginia, some of his associates kept alive the move- 
ment which had been so largely stimulated by him and 
carried it into effect before he died. 

Besides the more striking undertakings of the Elizabethan 
period, there were several other voyages during the early 
seventeenth century which made the North American coast 
more familiar to Englishmen and especially directed atten- 
tion to the northern section, which, as well as the southern, 



THE NEW OUTLOOK 37 

had ever since Raleigh's expeditions been included in the 
weneral name of Virginia, adopted in honor of the Queen. 
So in the century that followed the Cabot voyages, knowl- 
edge of America and its opportunities had, at first slowly 
and at the last more rapidly, increased among Englishmen. 
In spite of strange and inaccurate notions as to the "hinter- 
land" of North America, the maps of the period show a 
roughly correct view of the coastline. Men still hoped for 
an easy passage through the continent, but the old notion 
of America as a mere appendage to Asia had passed away. 
Gradually also the Indians were changing in the popular 
mind from the rich and civilized people expected by Colum- 
bus to the half-naked savages which they really were. The Public 
value of colonies in the New World had been widely dis- colonization. 
cussed, and, though many of the advantages expected were 
never realized, yet the idea of colonization had taken hold 
of some of the real leaders of the nation, who were especially 
stirred by the thought of successful competition with their 
Spanish rivals. Gradually, too, the merchant class and 
some of the nobility were being persuaded to invest their 
capital in American enterprises. 

In 1603, Elizabeth was succeeded by James VI of Scot- Half a 
land, now become James I of England, and three years later colonial 
the new King granted the famous Virginia charter which re- *^i^terpnse. 
suited in the planting of the first permanent English colony 
in America. The next fifty years of American colonization 
make up a period of extraordinary activity and substantial 
achievement in the history of the English-speaking people. 
The most familiar and the most important result of that 
half century was the planting of those colonies which were 
to prove the nucleus of the independent republic of the 
United States. Under the Virginia charter of 1606, two 
settlements were attempted. One of them, on the coast of 
Maine, failed utterly and was abandoned. The other, on 
the shores of Chesapeake Bay at Jamestown, seemed for a 



38 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



Typical pro- 
moters of 
colonization. 



Sir Thomas 
Smith. 



time almost equally hopeless but finally survived to become 
the colony or "Dominion" and later the state of Virginia. 
In the territory carved out of Virginia by the royal charter 
of 1632, Lord Baltimore planted his proprietary province 
of Maryland. North of Maryland, English enterprise was 
checked for a time by Dutch and Swedish settlements in 
the Hudson and Delaware valleys; but beyond the Hudson 
a great emigration of English Puritans made possible a 
group of self-governing New England colonies. For Ameri- 
cans, at least, these are the outstanding events of those 
fifty years; but they do not tell us the whole story of Eng- 
lish achievement during that period; nor can they be rightly 
understood unless we set them against the background of 
other events which then appeared no less important. 

The promoters of English overseas expansion represented 
many phases of the national life. Some were high officials 
lilce Sir John Popham, Chief Justice of the Court of King's 
Bench. No less influential were the merchants whose capital 
was required to finance these activities. A conspicuous 
figure in this group was Sir Thomas Smith, a kind of Pier- 
pont Morgan in his day and generation, who was at one 
time or another the chief executive officer of three great 
corporations: the East India Company, which laid the founda- 
tions of the British Indian Empire; the Muscovy Company, 
trading to Russia; and finally the Virginia Company. 
Another conspicuous merchant of that day was Sir WiUiam 
Courten, founder of the Barbados colony, whose enterprises 
ranged from the West Indies to the Far East. Gentry and 
nobility, too, of all degrees' were deeply interested in 
America. An especially attractive figure among them was 
Sir Edwin Sandys, son of a famous Archbishop of York, a 
leader of the "country party" in the House of Commons, 
and for a time the most influential member of the Virginia 
Company. In sharp contrast to Sandys in many ways was 
Sir Ferdinando Gorges, governor of the port of Plymouth, 



PROMOTERS OF COLONIZATION 39 

a soldier in the Continental wars, a lifelong promoter of 
trade and colonization especially in New England, a sturdy 
loyalist and antagonist of the Puritans on both sides of the 
Atlantic. There were also noblemen of higher rank: Sir 
George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, Secretary of State 
under James I, an early member of the Virginia Company, 
and founder of Maryland; Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, 
another leader in the Virginia Company and promoter of 
numerous other colonizing ventures, who became one of 
the great Puritan peers and on the outbreak of the English 
Civil War was created by the Long Parliament governor 
in chief of the colonies in America; the Earl of Carlisle, who 
in 1627 became proprietor of the Windward and Leeward 
Islands in the Caribbean Sea. 

The business methods were not always the same. Some- Methods of 
times, peers, gentry, and citizens united in a corporation cdonks"^ 
to secure grants of land with rights of government, as in the 
Virginia charter of 1609 and the New England patent of 1620. 
Sometimes an individual nobleman persuaded the King to 
make him lord proprietor of a group of islands or a tract 
of land on the continent, as, for example. Lord Baltimore in 
Maryland and Sir Ferdinando Gorges in Maine. Except in 
New England, however, and at first even there, a colony 
was primarily the enterprise of promoters who remained 
in England, establishing for their own profit trading posts 
and settlements beyond the sea. Usually, also, the King 
was content to leave the government, as well as the title to 
the land, with the promoting corporation or proprietor. 

Before studying in detail the permanent colonies on the island 
continent, it is worth while to take a rapid survey of what 
was accomplished elsewhere in this half century after the 
founding of Virginia. One of the most important results 
for England, and for the continental settlements as well, 
was the establishment of English colonies in the neighboring 
islands. This was, of course, poaching on the Spanish 



40 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



The English 
West Indies. 



Guiana. 



preserves; but fortunately for the other nations there were 
many unoccupied islands and these were gradually taken 
up by French, Dutch, Danish, and English adventurers. 
The Bermudas were for a time attached to Virginia; but 
they were soon granted to a new company, under which 
they prospered until they came to support a population of 
about three thousand people. Between the Bermudas and 
the West Indies proper were the Bahamas; but these were 
not seriously occupied during this period. 

The two principal centers of English colonization in the 
West Indies before 1655 were St, Christopher, from which 
other small islands of the Leeward group were gradually 
settled, and Barbados. In 1627, when Charles I made the 
Earl of Carlisle Lord Proprietor of the Caribbean Islands, 
settlements had already been made on St. Christopher and 
Barbados. There were some conflicting claims; but these 
were disposed of by 1629 and, except for a brief period after 
the overthrow of the monarchy in England, the proprietor 
retained his rights until 1661, when the islands were brought 
under royal government. Beginning with tobacco as their 
chief product, the English West Indies gradually devoted 
themselves more and more to the production of sugar by 
means of slave labor. Much English capital was invested 
in these islands, and most English ofi&cials considered them 
at least as important as the continental colonies. By the 
middle of the century Barbados had a population, including 
negroes, larger than that of Virginia. The relation of these 
sugar colonies to those of the continent was extremely 
important. From the continent came the food supplies on 
which the islands were largely dependent and for which they 
paid by the sale of their sugar. They also kept up a brisk 
trade with some of their foreign neighbors, particularly with 
the Dutch. 

On the mainland south of Barbados was Guiana, 
where Raleigh made his last venture. While he was a 



CARIBBEAN ENTERPRISES 



41 



prisoner in the Tower, attempts were made to establish 
settlements in this region; and in 16 13 James I granted 
a patent for "all that part of Guiana or continent of 
America" between the Amazon and Essequibo to Robert 
Harcourt, who published ''Notes" for the use of emi- 
grants. In 1627 another Guiana patent was granted by 
Charles I to his favorite the Duke of Buckingham and 
certain associates, and two hundred colonists were sent 
over. This enterprise was soon abandoned; but some Eng- 
lish settlements were subsequently made in Surinam, now 
Dutch Guiana. After 1650, this colony developed sufficiently 
to have a representative assembly, and in 1663 it was granted 
as a proprietary province to Lord Willoughby and Lawrence 
Hyde, the latter a son of the great Earl of Clarendon. On 
the coast of Honduras, also, the English had interests of 
some importance. In 1630 a Puritan company in which the 
Earl of Warwick and the parliamentary leader John Pym 
were prominent members founded a short-lived colony on 
the island of Providence, just off the Mosquito Coast. 

In North America, too, there were some unsuccessful 
ventures v/hich are worth remembering. In 1629, long be- 
fore the final settlement of the Carolinas, a patent covering 
much the same territory was granted to Sir Robert Heath. 
Heath, who was then Attorney-General and shortly after- 
wards became Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, 
had been a councillor of the Virginia Company and a mem- 
ber of the Council for New England ; but this plan came to 
nothing. In New England, the only substantial achieve- 
ments were those of self-governing Puritan colonies; but 
there were active efforts to establish colonies of a very dif- 
ferent sort. An energetic promoter in this region was Sir 
Ferdinando Gorges, who had magnificent plans for a great 
principality of which he should be the head. He was 
obliged, however, to content himself with the compara- 
tively modest proprietorship of Maine, and before long was 



Puritan 
enterprises 
in the 
Caribbean. 



Unsuccessful 
ventures in 
North 
America. 



42 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



Nova Scotia 
and New- 
foundland. 



English 
politics and 
American 
colonization. 



crowded out even there by the aggressive Puritans of 
Massachusetts. 

Even farther to the northward British enterprise was at 
work. In spite of the French colony in Acadia, the Scotch 
poet and pohtician, Sir WilHam Alexander, Earl of Stirling, 
secured from King James a patent for Nova Scotia, which 
included much more than the territory now known by that 
name. Like Gorges, he took his work seriously and sent out 
colonists; but before he died in 1640 his province was aban- 
doned to the French, and a real English province of Nova 
Scotia was not established until the beginning of the next 
century. Newfoundland, too, where thousands of English- 
men had engaged in fishing, seemed to offer an attractive 
field for the colonial promoter. Here Sir George Calvert, 
several years before the granting of his Maryland charter, 
tried to establish the province of Avalon; but he found the 
climate discouraging and gave it up. 

Thus the first half century after the landing of the 
colonists at Jamestown was one of great and varied activity 
in colonial affairs. The air was full of American projects 
which interested many of the same men who were promi- 
nent in other great concerns of their country. In the po- 
litical dissensions of the Stuart period and finally in the 
Civil War, many of them took sides, either like Gorges for 
the King or like Pym and the Earl of Warwick for the Par- 
liament. These conflicts had important consequences for 
the American colonies. Many abortive projects would 
doubtless have failed in any case for other reasons; but 
some might have succeeded if their loyalist promoters had 
not been checked by the temporary defeat of their party 
in the Civil War. In some cases the failure of these at- 
tempts by distant speculators to transplant Old World 
institutions cleared the way for genuine colonization. During 
these stormy years thousands of real colonists, who in or- 
dinary times could hardly have been tempted away from 



SELF-GOVERNMENT 



43 



home, were led to cross the ocean. Some hoped to realize 
religious and political ideals for which there seemed to be 
little chance in England; others, like certain settlers of 
Barbados described by Clarendon, asked "only to be quiet." 
Through the embarrassment of English promoters and the Develop- 
growing number of substantial, self-reliant colonists, the ^bnial self- 
center of gravity in colonial management was gradually government, 
shifted towards the American side of the Atlantic. This 
tendency was still further emphasized by the uncertain 
state of the sovereign government in England, which, alter- 
nately royal and republican, was for twenty years so much 
occupied with home problems that it could not develop a 
consistent American policy. Thus colonization came to be 
less and less an affair of merchants and noblemen in Eng- 
land and more and more the business of real settlers. 

It is only by keeping in mind this background of projects, 
successful and unsuccessful, ranging all the way from New- 
foundland at the north to Barbados and Guiana at the 
south, that one can hope to see in fair perspective the more 
familiar record of English colonization on Chesapeake Bay 
and the New England coast. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, C. M., Colonial Period, eh. I. Becker, C, Begin- General 
nings of the American People, chs. I, II. Bolton, H. E., and '^'^^^* 
Marshall, T. M., Colonization of North America, 1-86, 104-111, 
129-134. Channing, United States, 1, chs. I-V. Interesting sug- 
gestions in Semple, E. C, American History and Its Geographic 
Conditions, da. 1, and Eggleston, Beginners of a Nation, bk. I, 
ch. I. 

Bourne, E. G., Spain in America, chs. XIII, XIX, XX. Spanish 
Fiske, J., Discovery of America. achievements. 

Munro, W. B., Crusaders of New France, chs. I, III. Park- ^ffjjf^__ 
man, F., Pioneers of France. Winsor, J., Cartier to Frontenac, 
chs. I-IV. 



pioneers. 



44 



THE ENGLISH OUTLOOK ON AMERICA 



Elizabethan 
seamen. 



Readable 
sources. 



Colonial 
policy. 

West 
Indies. 



Fiske, J., Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, I, ch. I. Corbett, J., 
Sir Francis Drake (short biography by the author of Drake and 
the Tudor Navy, the standard work). Laughton, J. K., articles 
on Sir John Hawkins, Drake, and Raleigh in the EngHsh Diction- 
ary of National Biography. Wood, W., Elizabethan Seadogs. 

Burrage, H. S., Early English and Fre^ich Voyages. Payne, 
E. J., Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, First and Second Series. 
Brief extracts in Hart, A. B., Contemporaries, I, nos. 28-32. 
Hakluyt's Principall Navigations . . . of the English Nation has 
been reprinted by the Hakluyt Society (i 903-1 905); abridged 
edition in Everyman's Library. 

Beer, G. L., Origins of British Colonial Policy, chs. I-III. 
Osgood, H. L., American Colonies, I, pt. I, ch. I. 

Lucas, C. P., Historical Geography of the British Colonics, II. 

Newton, A. P., Colonizing Activities of the English Puritans. 



CHAPTER III 
THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 

The first permanent English colony in America had its The Vir- 

, , , , ginia charter 

startmg pomt m the royal charter granted by James I on of 1606. 

April 10, 1606. The grantees were described in general 
as "knights, gentlemen, merchants, and other adventurers"; 
and they belonged to two principal groups, one having its 
center in London, and the other in the west-country port 
of Plymouth. Of the Londoners named in the charter, one 
was the geographical expert, Richard Haklu5^t; the other 
three were soldiers who had fought the Spaniards and thus 
continued the tradition of Drake and Raleigh. The Plymouth 
group included Raleigh Gilbert, son of Sir Humphrey Gil- 
bert and nephew of Sir Walter Raleigh; also a nephew of 
Chief-Justice Popham, who was probably the most important 
ofiicial supporter of the movement. 

According to this charter Virginia included all of North international 
America between the thirty-fourth and forty-fifth parallels tion^^"^' 
of latitude, that is, roughly, between Nova Scotia and the 
southern line of North Carolina. In claiming this vast area, 
James ignored not only the French claims to the north but 
also those of the Spaniards, with whom he had only two 
years before signed a treaty of friendship. Spanish jealousy 
was at once aroused, the progress of the colony closely 
watched, and every effort made to secure its abandonment 
by the English government. In most matters James was 
anxious to please the Spaniards; but on this point he stub- 
bornly refused to yield. 

For the exploitation of this territory there were organ- 
45 



46 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



London and ized two "colonies" or companies: the London Company 
companies. "^^^ Called the first colony, and the Plymouth Company, 
the second colony. The London Company was entitled to 
make a settlement anywhere between the thirty-fourth and 
forty-first parallels. After having made its first settlement 
it was entitled to all the land along the coast for fifty miles 
north and fifty miles south of the point so occupied, with 
an extent of one hundred miles into the interior. The Plym- 
outh Company was given similar rights in northern Virginia, 
from the thirty-eighth to the forty-fifth parallels. There 
was therefore a zone of three degrees, extending roughly 
from the mouth of the Potomac to the mouth of the Hudson, 
which was open at the beginning to members of both com- 
panies; to prevent conflict, however, it was provided that 
when one company had established its colony, the other 
should not settle within a hundred miles of it. 

The government of Virginia was to be under the close 
control of the Crown; the affairs of each colony were to be 
regulated by royal orders, under the general supervision of 
a council appointed by the King. This superior council 
appointed two subordinate councils, one to reside in each 
Rights of the colony and manage its local affairs. The colonists them- 
selves were given no political rights; but the settlers and 
their children should have the same "liberties, franchises, 
and immunities" "as if they had been abiding and born 
within this our realm of England." On the basis of this 
clause and of similar provisions in other charters, the American 
colonials in after years declared their right to share in those 
fundamental personal and property rights which were em- 
bodied in the English common law. This principle was 
afterwards reaffirmed by the legal advisers of the English 
government, one of whom declared in words that have often 
been quoted: "Let an Englishman go where he will, he carries 
as much of law and liberty with him as the nature of things 
will bear." 



Colonial ad- 
ministration 



colonists. 



THE TRANSATLANTIC VOYAGE 47 

In 1607 both companies landed their first colonists in 
America, the London Company on Chesapeake Bay and 
the Plymouth Company at the mouth of the Kennebec 
River in Maine. The latter colony lived for only a few 
months; but the London Company, though at first almost 
equally unlucky, began what finally turned out to be a perma- 
nent American commonwealth. By December, 1606, three Expedition 
ships had been provided and 120 colonists were ready for 
the journey across the Atlantic. The instructions prepared 
for the colonists show that the promoters expected the es- 
tablishment of a single fortified post near the coast as a 
basis for exploring and trading expeditions. The colonists 
were to cultivate the soil, to search for a passage through 
to the Pacific, to look for gold mines, and to develop trade 
with the Indians. The list of councilors was kept sealed 
until the end of the voyage; but the commander of the 
fleet was Christopher Newport, a thoroughly experienced 
seaman, who had commanded one of Raleigh's ships in the 
war with Spain. 

In these days of transatlantic steamers, ocean cables, Trans; 
and wireless despatches, it is hard to realize what an ocean travel, 
voyage meant three hundred years ago. For one thing, it 
was still painfully long; Newport's fleet sailed from London 
December 20, 1606, and entered Chesapeake Bay April 26, 
1607, more than four months later. This voyage was de- 
layed by storms and the fleet took a roundabout route, 
stopping at several of the West Indies; but even twenty 
years later, Winthrop, sailing directly from England to Mas- 
sachusetts, took more than two months. These long voyages ^' 
were taken in vessels which would now be regarded as small 
even for pleasure yachts. Newport's three vessels had a 
tonnage of one hundred, forty, and twenty respectively, in 
striking contrast with modern ocean liners whose tonnage 
is counted in thousands of tons. With passengers crowded 
together for months in badly ventilated quarters, supplied 



48 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



The 

Chesapeake 
country. 



The 

tidewater 

region. 



with food which, without modern refrigerating processes, 
naturally grew worse as the voyage went on, and without 
water that was fit to drink, disease spread rapidly and the 
death rate was heavy; sixteen of the one hundred and twenty 
who sailed with Newport died on the voyage. When, to all 
these trials, there are added the chances of shipwreck 
in stormy weather and on unfamiliar coasts, the trans- 
atlantic voyage of 1606 may fairly be called an extra- 
hazardous undertaking, requiring strong bodies and stout 
hearts. 

The physical characteristics of the region in which the 
American republic had its starting point had a lasting influ- 
ence not only on the settlements there but on the whole 
course of American history. Fortunately there was among 
the first colonists an unusually keen observer in the person 
of Captain John Smith, whose Description oj Virginia 
enables us in some measure to see the country as it appeared 
three hundred years ago. Chesapeake Bay at its entrance, 
between Cape Henry on the south and Cape Charles on the 
north, is about fifteen m.iles wide. From this entrance the 
tidal waters of the bay extend almost due northward for 
nearly two hundred miles, with a maximum width of about 
forty miles. Between the bay and the ocean stretches a 
narrow strip of low, sandy coast; but this " Eastern Shore " 
has not a single important ocean harbor. Much more im- 
portant was the "Western Shore," opened up by a series of 
great rivers. Facing the entrance of the bay is the mouth 
of the James, on whose banks the first settlements were 
made; then in order to the northward come the York, 
the Rappahannock, the Potomac, the Patuxent, and at the 
head of the bay, the Susquehanna. Up these rivers the 
tide penetrates for considerable distances, and they are 
navigable still farther up for small vessels, the James for 
about a hundred miles and the Rappahannock and Potomac 
still farther. Each of these rivers has numerous tributaries, 



THE CHESAPEAKE COUNTRY 49 

SO that the whole plain is intersected by waterways available 
for small craft. 

During the seventeenth century the colonization of Vir- 
ginia and Maryland was confined mainly to the low-lying 
region of the tidewater. From the beginning, however, 
traders and explorers made their way to the falls of the The back 
rivers among the low hills of the piedmont district. Still '^^"'^'•■y- 
farther westward, in a region of which the first colonists 
had only a vague knowledge based upon the stories of the 
Indians, were the Blue Ridge and the Allegheny Plateau, 
with the "Great Valley of Virginia" lying between them; 
the settlement of this region had to wait for another century. 

As to climate, Smith's statement seems pretty near the Climate and 
truth: "The temperature of this countrie doth agree well 
with English constitutions being once seasoned to the coun- 
trie." Nevertheless, the early colonists suffered severely 
during the "seasoning" period from malarial diseases. 
Nearly the whole tidewater country was covered with forest; 
the clearing of it for cultivation was diflicult, but it furnished 
convenient building material. Game and fish were abundant 
and the soil was fertile. Wheat was unimportant until 
settlements advanced into the back country; but corn and 
tobacco were planted by the Indians and the colonists soon 
followed their example. 

The number of Indian inhabitants cannot be definitely Indian in- 
stated; Smith thought there were some 5000 within sixty 
miles of Jamestown. Most of the Indians of this neighbor- 
hood, and indeed of the whole North Atlantic coast, belonged 
to the Algonquian family; but at the head of the bay were 
the Susquehannocks, who belonged to the same stock as 
the northern confederacy of the Iroquois. Most of the 
Indians of the southern Chesapeake region were united in 
a kind of confederacy under the leadership of the chief Political 
Powhatan, a name also applied to his tribe and to the twn"o^\'he 
confederacy. The primitive political organization of the Indians. 



so 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Indian 
customs. 



Agriculture. 



Algonquian Indians was based largely on kinship. Families 
were grouped into clans and clans into tribes whose chiefs 
were usually chosen on the principle of hereditary succes- 
sion in the female line; thus the successor of Powhatan was 
one of his brothers by the same mother. Sometimes, as in 
the case of the Chesapeake Indians, tribes were loosely 
united in a confederacy. 

The strong ties of kinship which bound the Indians had 
important practical effects on their relations with the whites 
and made it harder for the two races to understand each 
other. As with other primitive peoples, the murder of a 
clansman by a member of some other clan was charged not 
merely against the individual who committed the crime, 
but against the clan or tribe to which he belonged. So the 
act of a single unscrupulous white man seemed to the Indian 
to justify retaliation against any of his associates. The rela- 
tions of the white men with the Indians were also compli- 
cated by different ideas about property. Individual owner- 
ship hardly existed except in the most intimate personal 
articles, such as the warrior's weapons, which were com- 
monly buried with him. The vague ideas held by the In- 
dians regarding the ownership of land were the source of 
serious misunderstandings between them and the whites who 
claimed to have bought large tracts in exchange for more 
or less valuable goods. 

Though in dress and other habits the Indians were dis- 
tinctly savages, they had developed out of the purely no- 
madic stage and lived in more or less permanent villages, 
with clearings for the cultivation of tobacco, Indian corn, 
and vegetables. Thus the early white settlers were able 
to use the experience of the Indians and sometimes de- 
pended on them for food. In the hundred years of ex- 
ploration that followed the discovery of America, the natives 
had had some trying experiences with white men, and the 
Virginia pioneers found them hostile or suspicious. On the 



THE JAMESTOWN COLONY 5 1 

day that the fleet first entered Chesapeake Bay a landing 
party was attacked by a party of "savages creeping upon 
all foure, from the Hills like Beares, with their Bowes in their 
mouthes." In the early history of Virginia, there were fre- Indian wars, 
quent periods of open or secret warfare which interfered 
seriously with the progress of the colony. 

In locating their first establishment, the colonists had 
the benefit of careful advice from the company. They were 
to locate it on a navigable river, far enough up to avoid 
attack from the sea and yet with sufficient depth of water 
for vessels of fifty tons. Accordingly, they selected the spot The 
on the northern bank of the James River, half island and setTlemenT 
half peninsula, where Jamestown was established. Un- 
fortunately, however, they chose low ground close to a 
marsh and covered with timber, which served as a cover 
for hostile Indians. Here they presently built a palisaded 
fort, placing within it a storehouse and a chapel. At this 
remote outpost of civilization there were gathered in the 
summer of 1607 about one hundred men and boys, no women 
having been included among the first colonists; and during 
the next two years about iSo additional settlers were brought. 
More than a third of the pioneers were "gentlemen," but 
there were also some artisans and agricultural laborers. 
The spiritual and physical health of the colonists was cared ^ 

for by a clergyman of the Church of England and a doctor f 
of physic. 

When the names of the first councilors were made public Government 
it turned out that seven of the ships' company, including colony 
Captain Newport, had been chosen and thus given almost 
absolute authority over the rest. From their own number 
the councilors selected a president, but he could be deposed 
by his associates and had little independent authority. The 
first president was deposed within a few months after his 
election and his successor was similarly disposed of not long 
afterwards. Two other councilors were arrested at various 



52 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Captain 
John Smith. 



Apparent 
failure. 



Sir Thomas 
Smith. 



times and one of them condemned to death for mutiny. 
Amid these mutual jealousies and bickerings, Captain John 
Smith stands out as more nearly qualified for leadership 
than any of the others. He was a man of marvelous adven- 
tures in the Old World and the New, and they certainly lost 
no picturesqueness in the telling. Having confidence in 
his own virtues and a low opinion of his associates, he was 
constantly quarreling and was twice arrested. Neverthe- 
less his efficiency was finally recognized by his election as 
president of the council and for a short time he carried on 
a vigorously despotic government. 

Whether as a business investment or as the nucleus of 
a new community, the colony was for the first two years an 
almost absolute failure. It was kept alive partly by sup- 
plies from England and partly with corn bought from the 
Indians; but these resources were insufficient. Living in 
an unhealthful situation, constantly in fear of attack from 
the Indians, and half starved, the settlers succumbed in 
appalling numbers; out of nearly three hundred settlers 
sent to Virginia under the first charter only about sixty re- 
mained alive in May, 1610. Some had returned to England, 
but the great majority were dead. To the company in Eng- 
land the results bought at this fearful cost seemed small 
indeed. The James River and Chesapeake Bay had been 
explored, but there was no passage to the western sea; 
no gold mines had been discovered; and though some Vir- 
ginia products had been carried back to England, the colony 
seemed likely to prove a source of expense rather than of 
profit to its promoters for some time to come. 

Fortunately there were strong men among the promoters, 
who were not discouraged and who set themselves to the 
necessary work of reorganization. One of them was the 
great merchant. Sir Thomas Smith, who brought to the 
service of Virginia, not only the expert knowledge of a 
financier, but also the influence of a conspicuous public 




Sir Thomas Smith 



53 



54 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Sir Edwin 
Saudys. 



The second 
charter. 



man. Among the positions held by him were those of alder- 
man and sheriff of the City of London, ambassador to Russia, 
and governor of the East India Company. In 1603 he was 
knighted and he afterwards became a member of ParHa- 
ment. All in all. he was probably the most distinguished 
capitalist and promoter of the period. As Smith stands for 
the rich and energetic London merchants of his day, so 
Sir Edwin Sandys represents the interest of the gentry in 
American affairs. He was a son of the Puritan Archbishop 
of York, an Oxford graduate with some experience abroad, 
and a writer of some reputation. Lilce Sir Thomas Smith, 
he was knighted by James I and had at first the confidence 
of the King. Later, however, he became a leader of the oppo- 
sition, or "country party," in Parliament and in 1605 one of 
his books was burned by order of the High Commission. 
Though Smith and Sandys afterwards drifted apart, they 
cooperated for many years in the promotion of Virginia 
interests. Through the efforts of these men and their asso- 
ciates, the King was persuaded to issue, in 1609, a new Vir- 
ginia charter. 

The new charter created a corporation, corresponding 
roughly to the London group, or "first colony," of 1606, 
called the "Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and 
Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in Vir- 
ginia." This corporation received a definite extent of coast 
line, two hundred miles north and two hundred miles south 
of Old Point Comfort, with the interior country "up into 
the land, throughout from sea to sea, west and northwest." 
In the government of this territory the company was given 
a much freer hand than under the first charter; the treasurer 
and the first councilors were named by the King but their 
successors were to be chosen by the company. Virginia was 
thus placed almost completely under the control of a cor- 
poration having its "head office" in London. Nothing what- 
ever was said about any right of the colonists to participate 



REORGANIZATION 55 

in their own government; the company, acting through 
officers appointed in England, had "full and absolute power 
and authority to correct, punish, pardon, govern, and rule" 
all the King's subjects in Virginia. Three years later a A third 
third charter of 1612 made more definite provisions for 
quarterly meetings of all the stockliolders and strengthened 
their control of the company's business, but left the status 
of the colonists unchanged. The treasurer, or chief execu- 
tive, of the company was Sir Thomas Smith and what- 
ever else may be said of him the fact remains that during 
his ten years' service the permanence of the colony was 
practically assured. 

The first problem of the new management was that of National 
securing capital and in this they were strikingly successful. ^ the 
Among the charter members were fifty-six city companies enterprise, 
of London, including the Goldsmiths' Company, the Mercers', 
the Drapers', and the Merchant Tailors'. Besides these 
corporations, there were 659 individuals, — merchants, peers, 
knights, and country gentlemen; one hundred or more were, 
at one time or another, members of Parliament. Public 
men like the Earl of Salisbury, the chief minister of James I, 
and Sir Francis Bacon saw in the company an opportunity 
to advance national power. Business men were looking for 
profitable trade, and religion was not forgotten. Here was 
a chance to convert the savages and save the New World 
for the Anglican, as distinguished from the Spanish, kind of 
Christianity. Popular interest was also keen; the Spanish 
Ambassador, Zuniga, wrote that there was "no poor little 
man nor woman who is not willing to subscribe something 
for this enterprise." Then, as now, promoters were not always 
frank, and their optimistic accounts of life in Virginia 
resulted in serious disappointment for thousands of 
emigrants. 

Another necessary task was that of reorganizing the 
government in Virginia. Government by a resident council 



56 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



A new 
government 
in Virginia. 



Aims and 
methods 
of the 
company. 



The 

colony still 
unsuccessful 



had apparently failed, and the company decided to choose 
as governor a man of high standing and give him almost 
absolute power. The man selected for this post was Lord 
Delaware, but his actual residence in Virginia was short and 
the government was carried on in succession by two military 
men, Sir Thomas Gates, one of the grantees under the first 
charter, and Sir Thomas Dale, who had lately been fighting 
for the Dutch on the Continent; it is a striking illustra- 
tion of the world-wide activities of Englishmen in those days 
that Dale's last year was spent in the Far East, fighting 
against the Dutch. 

Virginia was now governed by a combination of mili- 
tary methods with those of a factory superintendent. It 
was still primarily an investment proposition for the com- 
pany and a large proportion of the settlers were bound to 
service for a term of years. Colonists were furnished with 
supplies by the company and expected to work for the com- 
mon store. The promoters still emphasized the search for 
gold and silver, and for some passage through the continent 
to the rich trade of the Indies. The interests of religion were 
also remembered. Ministers were sent out and one of the 
first buildings was a chapel in which services were held ac- 
cording to the practice of the Anglican Church. The intoler- 
ance of the time is shown by the exclusion of Catholics 
from the colony. 

Still the colony did not prosper. Settlers came in large 
numbers, but the "seasoning" process was still terribly 
severe. In 1616, for instance, there were only about 350 
survivors out of over 1600 who had been sent out. The visit 
of a few Spaniards in 161 1 caused some anxiety, though 
they departed without doing any damage, leaving three 
of their number as prisoners. There was constant complaint 
also of arbitrary and extortionate conduct on the part of 
the company's officials. The extravagant hopes of the early 
promoters faded away and attempts to stimulate the pro- 



REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY 57 

duction of pitch, tar, silk, and wine were almost wholly 
unsuccessful. 

During these trying years, however, the Virginians hit Tobacco, 
upon a product which was to become their chief article 
of export during the next century. The use of tobacco was 
common in England when the Virginia Company was 
chartered, but it was chiefly imported from the Spanish 
colonies and at first the Virginia product was not popular. 
By 1616, however, a method of curing was discovered which 
enabled the colonists to build up their export trade. Another 
step toward the foundation of a self-reliant community was The colony 
the abandonment of the communal method of production. 
Settlement was stimulated by grants of land to individuals 
and the formation of subsidiary companies which received 
special privileges on condition of bringing over a certain 
number of colonists. Meantime, women were coming out 
and family life was taking root in new American homes. 

As ■ the colony developed out of a factory or trading 
station into a community of permanent settlers, the evils 
of the old arbitrary system were more keenly felt. Fortu- 
nately, there was a strong liberal element in the company 
and in 1618 a new governor was sent out with instructions The first 
which resulted in the first representative legislature ever tFveTs'sembiy 
held in America. This memorable assembly, which gathered '" America. 
in the little church at Jamestown on July 30, 1619, consisted 
of the governor and councilors appointed by the company, 
and "burgesses" chosen by the inhabitants. The speaker 
was a former member of the House of Commons. The mem- 
bers of this young legislature concerned themselves mainly 
with very simple and practical matters — how to prevent 
the one-sided development of the tobacco industry by 
encouraging the production of corn, wine, and even silk; 
how to discourage extravagance in dress and how to promote 
religion and morals, including church attendance and Sun- 
day observance. In this modest fashion, the representative 



58 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Internal 
troubles. 
Sandys 
and his 
opponents. 



Heavy 
losses. 



idea which had hitherto found its highest expression in Eng- 
land was planted in the new soil of America, where it has had 
a development quite beyond the dreams of its original 
sponsors. 

Meantime the Virginia Company was drifting into stormy 
waters. There were serious conflicts between opposing fac- 
tions and finally Sir Thomas Smith gave up his position 
as treasurer of the enterprise. His successor, Sir Edwin 
Sandys, held ofiice for only a year, but he was active in the 
affairs of the company until'the charter was revoked in 1624. 
Sandys was not merely a radical politician, but a serious 
student of political philosophy and a sincere believer in popu- 
lar government. In accordance with his views, the repre- 
sentative system in Virginia, which had been authorized 
while Smith was still treasurer, was presently embodied 
in a written constitution. Sandys also had plans for better 
support of the church and for the establishment of a college. 
None of these things, however, could be done without more 
revenue, and various projects for this purpose were dis- 
cussed, including a plan to increase the profits of the com- 
pany by giving it a monopoly in the importation of tobacco 
into England. It was not easy, however, to reach an agree- 
ment with the King, who disliked the political views of 
Sandys and his friends; they were also embarrassed by the 
attacks of their opponents in the company. Many of the 
charges made against them were doubtless false or exag- 
gerated; but the results of the company's administration 
seemed after all hardly proportionate to the money ex- 
pended and the efforts made. Thousands of settlers had 
been sent out, but the death rate was still abnormally high; 
and in 1624 there were only about 1200 people actually living 
in Virginia. In 1622 there was an Indian outbreak in which 
over three hundred whites were killed and this also was 
charged against the company's management. 

Under these circumstances the company was unable to 



THE CHARTER ANNULLED 59 

defend itself successfully against the increasing hostility of 
the King and his advisers. The Attorney-General brought The faU 
suit against the company and in 1624 the charter was an- company, 
nulled by an order in court. Virginia now became a royal 
govermnent, and though some of the settlers regretted the 
change, real progress was probably made when the young 
colony passed out of the control of a mercantile corporation 
into direct relations with the English government. 

The changes resulting from the forfeiture of the charter Virginia as 
were less radical than might be supposed. The ultimate province, 
control of the colony was still in England; but the King, 
through his ministers, now took the place of the company. 
The head of the government in the colony was the governor, 
appointed by the King to serve during the royal pleasure, 
with powers and duties defined in his commission and instruc- 
tions. Councilors, also appointed by the King, assisted the 
governor and exercised a certain check upon him; usually The repre- 
they were chosen from among the principal settlers. At principle, 
first it was not certain that the representative assembly 
organized by the company would be continued, but before 
long it was definitely recognized by the new King. As in 
England the supreme lawmaking authority was exercised by 
King, Lords, and Commons, so the Virginia legislature con- 
sisted of governor, councilors, and burgesses. According to 
the English official theory, this and other colonial legislatures 
were merely municipal corporations created by the govern- 
ment at home and wholly dependent upon it; but the Ameri- 
can assemblies looked to the English House of Commons 
as their model, insisting in particular that taxes should not 
be levied by the executive without their consent. At first 
governor, councilors, and burgesses sat together in one 
house; but before long the two-house system of the English cameral 
Parliament, now a familiar feature of American state and system- 
federal governments, was established, with the governor 
exercising the right of veto. 



6o 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Governor 

and 

assembly. 



Local 
government. 



The constitutional conflicts of the mother country were 
reproduced on a small scale in Virginia. Thus Captain John 
Harvey, appointed governor in 1629, soon quarreled with 
the assembly, which strenuously defended its exclusive right 
to le\'y taxes. The colonists finally expelled Harvey and, 
though the home government sent him back, a change was 
soon made. In 1641 the instructions to the new governor, 
Sir William Berkeley, recognized quite definitely tlie legis- 
lative power of the assembly. Little attention was paid, 
however, to that theory of the "separation of powers" which 
Americans later came to regard as so important. The 
governor and council not only had executive powers but 
also took part in the lawmaking process and heard appeals 
from the provincial courts of justice. The assembly itself 
was for many years the highest court of appeal. 

The organization of local government was at first con- 
fused because of special political privileges given to com- 
panies or individuals who were prepared to bring over large 
numbers of settlers. Gradually, however, the Virginians 
reproduced the local institutions with which they had been 
famihar in England. County government was carried on 
by the justices of the peace assembled in the county courts; 
they administered justice, levied county taxes, and attended 
to various other kinds of local business. The Virginia jus- 
tices were appointed by the governor; but, as in England, 
they were selected from the principal families of the county. 
The orders of the justices were executed by the sheriff and 
for purposes of military defense there was a county lieutenant 
corresponding roughly to the lord lieutenant of the Enghsh 
county. The English parish was also reproduced, though 
it often covered a very large area; sometimes, indeed, a whole 
county constituted a single parish. The parishioners were 
authorized by law to elect members of the governing body, 
or vestry, to sit with the parson; but before long, vacancies 
were quite generally filled by the surviving members, and 



CHURCH AND STATE 6 1 

the vestry thus became a "close corporation." Of these two 
divisions of local government, the county was much the 
more important. It was the election district for the choice 
of burgesses and about its courthouse centered not only 
the ordinary county business but many other political and 
social activities. 

In the church, as in the civil government, Virginians Church and 
were on the whole content to follow English practice, regard- 
ing the church and the state as two closely coordinated 
agencies for upholding morality and good order. While 
the company was in control, gifts were made to it for religious 
purposes by philanthropic persons in England and clergy- 
men were employed by the company itself. When Virginia 
became a royal province, the governor was ordered to see 
that "God Almighty" was "devoutly and duly served," 
which meant that churches were to be managed and services 
conducted according to the Anglican form. The assembly 
also did its part by requiring the settlers in each parish to 
pay taxes for the support of the clergy. Having provided 
these religious advantages, the Virginia authorities expected 
the inhabitants to take advantage of them; laws were ac- 
cordingly passed requiring church attendance and the 
proper observance of Sunday. The strictness of these regu- 
lations is noteworthy, because most of the Virginians were 
not in sympathy with the aggressive Puritan party in the 
mother country. 

Under this civil and ecclesiastical government, Virginia Expansion, 
society was evidently taking on a more permanent character. 
Having passed through the severe tests of the pioneer period, 
the survivors formed a well "seasoned" nucleus for future 
growth. A few of them lived on the eastern shore of Chesa- 
peake Bay, but the majority were settled along the James 
River from its mouth to a little below the falls. During 
the first two decades of royal government, population grew 
slowly; the new settlers still found it hard to adjust 



62 THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 

themselves to the cHmatic conditions, and the death rate con- 
tinued appallingly high. For some years after the massacre 
of 1622 there were no serious Indian troubles and the frontier 
was gradually pushed back to the north and west; but in 
1644 there was another Indian outbreak, in which many 
settlers lost their lives. After the opening of the English 
Civil War, Virginia grew more rapidly; for the disappointed 
Cavaliers began to take refuge across the sea, especially 
after the defeat of the royal forces by the parliamentary 
armies. By 1652 there were perhaps 20,000 people in the 
province. 

Social This pioneer population was drawn from various classes. 

From the first there had been a fair proportion of the gentry 
and this element was strengthened by the coming of the 
Cavaliers; but there were also traders and a considerable 
number of workingmen. The latter were usually indentured 
servants, bound to labor for a term of years with tlie 
understanding that they should be supported during that 
time by their masters. Though their service was temporary, 
their condition in other respects was hardly better than that 
of slaves, for they could be bought and sold like other 
property. Some white servants were criminals recruited 
from English jails, but such immigrants were regarded as 
undesirable and probably did not constitute a large pro- 
portion of the whole number. Many belonged simply to 
the class of the unfortunate poor and a surprising propor- 
tion were children, some of whom had been kidnaped. The 
best white servants were probably the political prisoners, 
sent over in considerable numbers during the second half 
of tlie seventeenth century as a result of the political dis- 
sensions at home. Until the last quarter of tlie seventeentli 
century, the Virginia planters depended mainly on white 
labor; the number of negro slaves, though slowly increas- 
ing, was still comparatively unimportant. 

Land system. Qj^g Qf ^q decisive factors in the shaping of the "Old 



THE LAND SYSTEM 63 

Dominion" was its system of land tenure. According to 
the oificial theory, the title to all land within the territory 
claimed by the English was in the King, the Indian having 
no legal claims which white men and Christians were bound 
to respect. Actual practice was often better than the official 
theory; in many cases the Indians were paid for their land 
and the colonial assemblies sometimes took measures to 
protect the natives from unfair treatment. Nevertheless, 
in strict law, every valid title deed went back to the King. 
At first the rights of the King as supreme landlord were, 
in the main, transmitted to the Virginia Company; but 
after the revocation of the charter in 1624 all land not 
already granted to individuals or corporations reverted to 
the Crown. 

The ordinary method by which this royal domain passed Growth 
into the hands of private owners during the seventeenth piaiuatlons, 
century was the "head right" system, under which fifty 
acres of land were granted for each immigrant, the grant 
being made either to the immigrant himself or to the person 
who paid for his transportation. Thus a person who acquired 
one hundred "head rights" became entitled to five thousand 
acres of land. During the middle years of the seventeenth 
century the average size of a grant was about five hun- 
dred acres, and Virginia was gradually developing the sys- 
tem of large plantations which became more striking in 
later years. Every grant of land was subject to certain 
general conditions. A part of it must be cleared and culti- 
vated within a limited time and some sort of a house built 
upon it. These requirements were not, however, strictly en- 
forced and many planters acquired title to much more land 
than they were able to use. This concentration of land 
in a few hands was naturally discouraging to new settlers 
and proved an important factor in the westward movement. 
Every holder of land was further required to pay an annual 
quitrent to the King. The amount demanded was small Quitrents. 



64 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Tobacco 
and the 
plantation 
system. 



Regulation 
of the 
tobacco 
trade. 



and was commonly paid in tobacco; but it was collected 
with difficulty and caused much irritation. 

The development of large estates was facilitated by the 
physical characteristics of the country, with its great rivers 
giving easy access to the interior; but it was also due to the 
fact that its chief product, tobacco, was peculiarly adapted 
to large-scale production by a servile class of workers. The 
people of Virginia were not of course exclusively occupied 
with the raising of tobacco; the normal plantation had also 
its corn, its live stock, and its orchards. Nevertheless to- 
bacco was the one article which could be profitably exported 
to Europe in large quantities. Repeated efforts were made 
to encourage a more diversified industry by the planting of 
vines, the introduction of silk culture, and the establishment 
of iron works; but without much success. 

This one-sided development had serious disadvantages. 
There were great fiuctuations in the price of tobacco; and 
the problem was still further complicated when new tobacco- 
growing areas were settled, first in Maryland and then in 
North Carolina. Attempts were made to secure favorable 
market conditions by regulating the quantity and quality 
of the product, but these regulations were always difficult 
to enforce. Naturally enough the Virginians and tliose 
English merchants who were interested in the Virginia 
trade desired to secure as complete control of the home 
market as possible, and in the end the English government 
discriminated in favor of their own colonists as against the 
Spaniards and other producers. The home government was 
even willing to prohibit tobacco production in England, 
though some experiments had been made there, the sup- 
pression of which caused considerable feeling. Virginians 
desired not only to keep the Enghsh market, but also to 
export their tobacco freely to foreign countries, especially 
to the Netherlands. On this point, British policy was fairly 
consistent; the general rule from the beginning was to re- 



GOVERNOR BERKELEY 65 

quire the shipment of colonial tobacco to England, and tliis 
was finally required by law in the Navigation Act of 
1660. 

Perhaps the most notable figure among the Virginians sir William 
of this period was their governor, Sir William Berkeley. He ^^'"^^^^y- 
came of a good Somersetshire family, studied at Oxford, 
traveled abroad, and tried his hand at playwriting. As 
a gentleman in waiting at the court of Charles I, his early 
manhood was spent in an atmosphere of loyalty to church 
and King. He was made governor of Vu-ginia in 1641, 
when he was still a young man, and during the next decade 
he threw himself vigorously into the life of tlie province. 
Under his leadership the colony took a strong stand for 
the Church of England against various forms of religious 
dissent, with the result that many Puritans left Virginia, 
and took refuge in the nev/ proprietary colon}^ of Mary- 
land. When the Civil War broke out in England, gover- 
nor and people stood together for the King, and held 
their ground courageously even after the execution of 
Charles I. Yet the loyalty of the Virginians was not mere The Vir- 
servility. In 1635 they had dared to send home a royal foyltists. 
governor who offended them, and in the same spirit they • 
asserted their rights against the victorious parliamentary • 
party until, as will be seen in the next chapter, they finally 
yielded to superior force. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, I, chs. VII, VIII. Eggleston, E., General 
Beginners of a Nation, bk. I, chs. II, III. Fiske, J., Old Virginia ^°^^ 
and Her Neighbors, I, chs. II-VII. Johnston, M., Pioneers of 
the Old South, chs. I-VIII. Tyler, L. G., England in America, 
chs. Ill- VI. Wertenbaker, T. J., Virginia tinder the Stuarts, 
pp. 1-94. 

Brown, A., First Republic in America; his Genesis of the United Virginia 
States is the most comprehensive collection of material on the Company. 



66 



THE VIRGINIA PIONEERS 



Economic 
factors. 



Institutions. 



Early 
society. 

Sources. 



founding of Virginia. Kingsbury, S. M., Records of the Virginia 
Company (introductory essay in vol. I). 

Beer, G. L., Origins of the British Colonial System, chs. IV- VII. 
Bruce, P. A., Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth 
Century, especially I, chs. I-V, VIII, IX. American Historical 
Review, XII, 507-528 (Cheyney). 

Bruce, P. A., Institutional History of Virginia, especially I, 
pt. I, ch. I; II, pt. V, chs. I-III (Government). Osgood, H. L., 
American Colonies,!, pt. I, chs. II-IV; III, chs. II, IV. Flippin, 
P. S., Royal Govermnent in Virginia (very detailed). 

Bruce, P. A., Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Ceniury, 
chs. I-III. 

Charters of the Virginia Company in Brown's Genesis, I; 
extracts in Macdonald, W., Select Charters, nos. 1-3. Hening, 
W. W., Statutes of Virginia, I (illustrating social as well as political 
conditions). L. G. Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia (most 
convenient for the general reader). Brief extracts in Hart, Con- 
temporaries, 1, nos. 59-67, 82, 83. 



CHAPTER IV 
THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632 TO 1688 

WiHLE Virginia was taking shape as a royal province, Proprietary 
a different experiment was tried across the Potomac, The p''°^"^'^^^- 
overthrow of the Virginia Company did not after all mean 
a complete change in English policy. In a long series of 
colonial charters, Charles I and Charles II gave away to 
private individuals or corporations the right to govern 
English subjects in the New World. Of the proprietary 
provinces thus established, one of the most important was 
Marvland, given in 16^2 to Cecilius Calvert, second Lord The Mary- 

-'''=' ^ land charter. 

Baltimore, who in that year secured by a royal charter cer- 
tain rights already promised to his father. It was this 
father, George, first Lord Baltimore, who was the real 
originator of the Maryland colony. 

George Calvert was an Oxford graduate, a successful George 

, - , • -r. T 1 Calvert, 

courtier, a member of the court party m Parliament, and first Lord 
finally in 1619 one of the King's "principal secretaries of 
state." His chance of a career in politics was closed later 
by his conversion to Catholicism, for the oath of suprem- 
acy administered to ofiiceholders would have required 
him to renounce the authority of the Pope; but he found 
some compensation for this sacrifice in the continued good 
will of King Charles, who gave him a place in the Irish 
peerage as Baron Baltimore. Meantime he had shown in 
various ways his interest in trade and colonization, having 
been associated with the East India Company, the Virginia 
Company, and the Council for New England. After an 
unsuccessful attempt to establish a province of his own in 

67 



Baltimore. 



68 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 163 2- 1688 



Boundaries. 



Authority of 
the proprie- 
tor. The 
palatinate 
of Durham. 



Newfoundland, Lord Baltimore thought of settling in Vir- 
ginia; but the Virginians kept him out by confronting him 
with that same oath of supremacy which blocked his career 
at home. In the end, however, his influence at court enabled 
him to get the better of his Virginia opponents. Before he 
died, the King had agreed to cut off from Virginia the terri- 
tory north of the Potomac, and convert it into a separate 
province which was to be the hereditary possession of the 
Baltimore family. 

The new province extended from the Potomac north- 
ward to the fortieth parallel, and from the ocean to the sources 
of the Potomac. Unlike Virginia, therefore, Maryland had 
a definite western boundary, a fact of some iinportance in 
the later history of the United States. The Virginians were 
much aggrieved by the loss of this territory, though the 
forfeiture of their charter in 1624 left them without any 
legal defense. Later, by a sort of poetic justice, the Balti- 
more family itself was made to realize tlie uncertainty of royal 
favors, when the northern part of Maryland (now southern 
Pennsylvania and Delaware) was given to William Penn. 

Within this territory. Lord Baltimore became not merely 
a landowner, but a feudal magnate with extensive political 
powers, explained in general terms as equal to those en- 
joyed by the English Bishop of Durham in the "county 
palatine of Durham." This palatinate of Durham, near the 
Scotch border, was one of those feudal principalities created 
in medieval times to guard the turbulent and sparsely settled 
frontiers of the kingdom against invaders. In return for 
this service, the nobleman or churchman who ruled the 
principality was given extraordinary powers and exempted 
to a large extent from the control of the central government. 
As the royal power increased, these jurisdictions tended to 
disappear; but the Bishop of Durham still kept his palati- 
nate, though with greatly diminished authority. This 
nearly obsolete institution of medieval England was now 



MARYLAND 69 

given a new lease of life as the government of an American 
province. Like the palatinate of Durham in its palmiest The pro- 
days, Maryland and its proprietor occupied a very inde- systen7in 
pendent position. In recognition of the King's overlord- Maryland, 
ship, the proprietor had to make an annual payment of two 
Indian arrows, with a fifth of all the gold and silver found. 
The laws of the province also had to be in harmony with 
those of England so far as possible. In most other respects, 
Lord Baltimore had a free hand. One medieval feature 
of the charter was the right of the proprietor to establish 
in Maryland the decadent manorial system of the mother 
country. In one important respect, however, this charter 
was more liberal than those granted to the Virginia Com- 
pany; it recognized definitely the right of the settlers to 
share in the making of laws. 

About two years after the Maryland charter was granted. Early 
Lord Baltimore's first settlers landed on the northern side 
of the Potomac. This second Lord Baltimore, who governed 
the colony at long range from England during the next forty 
years, seems to have been a hard-headed, practical business 
man, with a good deal of that tact and diplomatic skill 
which were sorely needed during these stormy years of 
English and American history. Having received from his 
father a great landed estate, he naturally wished to preserve 
and improve that estate and make it a source of profit. 
Like his father he desired, as a good Catholic, to promote 
the interests of his own church and provide a refuge for 
persecuted fellow Catholics. A good proportion of the The 
early settlers and especially of the leading men did actu- element, 
ally belong to this church; but the number of Catholic 
emigrants was too small to make possible the development 
of a strong colony. Most English Catholics preferred to 
take their chances with the English penal laws, which, though 
severe on paper were less so in practice, except in times of 
special excitement. 



70 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 



Religious 
toleration. 



Early de- 
velopment 
of the 
colony. 



Indian 
relations. 



Maryland 
and Vir- 
ginia. 
William 
Claiborne. 



Even if more Catholics had come over, it would still 
have been difficult to make Maryland a strictly Catholic 
colony; for the King to whom the province owed allegiance 
was bound by his oath to defend the Church of England, 
and the charter itself provided that the ecclesiastical laws 
of England should be enforced. Even under a friendly king, 
Lord Baltimore had to keep in mind the Puritan party in 
England, as well as his Virginia neighbors, who were only 
too ready to find a pretext for attacking the new colony. 
If, therefore, the province was to be prosperous and safe, 
it could not pursue an exclusive reUgious policy but must 
seek to attract Protestants and Catholics alike. Whatever 
Calvert's motives may have been, he undoubtedly adopted 
a consistent poHcy of toleration and used his best efforts 
to avoid religious dissensions among his colonists. His 
agents were warned at tlie outset to avoid giving the Protes- 
tants any just grounds for complaint in Virginia or in 
England. 

The early years of the new colony were much happier 
than those of Virginia. A healthful site was found for their 
first settlement at St. Marys, near the mouth of the Potomac, 
which the Jesuit, Father White, described as the "greatest 
river I haVfe scene, so that the Thames is but a little 
finger to it." Profiting perhaps by Virginia experience, the 
early Maryland settlers escaped the heavy toll of human 
life which was paid for the establishment of the older prov- 
ince. They were more fortunate, too, in their relations with 
their savage neighbors. The Indians about St. Marys were 
less aggressive and the Jesuits* were active in missionary 
work among them. So the Marylanders were saved from 
serious border warfare until the growth of the colony brought 
them into conflict with the more warlike Susquehannocks. 
They had more trouble with the Virginians, and particularly 
with one energetic and persistent individual named William 
Claiborne, who had lately established a trading post on Kent 



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND 7 1 

Island in Chesapeake Bay, within the limits of the Mary- 
land grant. Lord Baltimore proposed that Claiborne should 
keep the land on condition of recognizing the proprietor's 
government; but the attempt failed and the two parties y 
presently came to blows. In 1638, the English government 
settled the question for the time being in favor of Lord Balti- 
more, but Claiborne was not satisfied and a few years later 
took his revenge. 

Meantime, the proprietor was fairly successful in getting Economic 
settlers, both Protestant and Catholic, who were willing to Marylard^^ ' 
take up lands on his own terms. These were liberal and manors, 
not unlike those olTered in Virginia. One peculiar feature 
of the Maryland system, however, was the plan for the 
establishment of manorial estates. An "adventurer" who 
took five men to Maryland, paid their transportation, and 
provided them with certain necessaries, might become a 
"lord of the manor, " with an estate of a thousand acres, sub- 
ject to an annual rent of twenty shillings. A few manors and 
manorial courts were actually established; but the in- 
stitution was not adapted to American conditions and failed 
to take root. 

Here, as in Virginia, two classes stand out conspicuously 
in the early immigration: the "adventurers," or promoters, "Adven- 
who not only came out themselves but brought others with servants. 
them; and the indentured servants. Of the first two hundred 
colonists who settled at St. Marys, seventeen were classed 
as "adventurers"; two were brothers of the proprietor and 
several others were apparently persons of considerable 
social standing. In Maryland, the white servant remained 
an important feature of industrial life longer than in any 
other southern colony, but as each servant was entitled to 
fifty acres on the e>q)iration of his term of service he some- 
times rose considerably in the social scale. A contemporary 
pamphlet describes Maryland as very attractive for persons 
of this class. In the final outcome Maryland had a much 



72 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, i632-i( 



Location of 
settlements. 



Tobacco. 



Beginnings 
of repre- 
sentative 
government. 



larger proportion of small proprietors than Virginia. For 
the first thirty years of Maryland history, the settlements 
were mainly on the west shore of Chesapeake Bay between 
the Potomac and the Patuxent; but there were outlying 
plantations on the upper part of the bay at Kent Island 
and at the mouth of the Severn River where some Virginia 
Puritans established a settlement called Providence, on the 
present site of Annapolis. The Marylanders, like the Vir- 
ginians, devoted themselves largely to tobacco, until in 1666 
it was said to be "the only solid staple commodity" of 
the province. 

For most purposes the highest authority in the Mary- 
land government was the proprietor. Cecilius Calvert never 
came to America, and the actual administration was tliere- 
fore mainly in the hands of his agents, the lieutenant governor 
and the councilors. The proprietor accepted the principle, 
stated in the charter, that laws should be made with the 
consent of the freemen; but a true representative system 
was only gradually developed. At first all the freemen 
met, somewhat in the manner of a town meeting, to consider 
laws proposed by the proprietor. This worked fairly well 
when the colony was confined to the immediate neighbor- 
hood of St. Marys, but became inconvenient and unfair 
when new settlements were formed at a distance. For a 
time absentees were allowed to vote by proxy, much as they 
are in a modern corporation; but this method gave too much 
power to a comparatively few officeholders and other influ- 
ential persons. So, in the end, a real representative as- 
sembly was established in which the people could speak 
through their elected representatives. The assembly 
was then divided into two houses, as in Virginia, the 
governor and council in one and the representatives in the 
other. At first the proprietor insisted that he alone could 
propose laws; all the assembly could do was to accept or 
reject his proposals. Finally, however, the representatives 



RELIGION IN MARYLAND 73 

made good their claim to an independent right of originating 
legislation. The result of this whole development was that 
tlae government of Maryland became much like that of 
Virginia, except that for most purposes the proprietor took 
tlie place of the King. 

Rehgious conditions in the colony of Maryland were so Problems of 
diiierent from those in Virginia that a radically different proprietor 
solution was necessary. Here was a Catholic proprietor, 
holding his title from a King who was himself the official 
head of the Anglican Church, and working under a charter 
which deiinitely recognized that church and no other. He 
knew also that he was jealously watched by the Puritans 
in England and his Protestant neighbors in Virginia. The 
colonists themselves were divided, the upper class being 
largely Catholic while the poorer element in the community 
was mainly Protestant or at least non-Catholic. Though 
the proprietor was anxious not to give offense, the Catholic 
element, and especially the Jesuit fathers, were very active The Jesuits. 
in the early history of the colony. An account of Maryland, 
written in 1633, declared that the "first and most important 
design" of the colony should be not so much "planting 
fruits and trees in a land so fruitful," as "sowing the seeds 
of religion and piety." The Jesuits were anxious to Christian- 
ize the Indians, but they also felt responsible for the spiritual 
welfare of the Catholic colonists and the conversion of 
Protestants. According to the Jesuit Annual Letter of 1638, 
a majority of the Protestants who came out in that year 
were converted to the Catholic faith. 

Meantime, Lord Baltimore and his agents tried to deal 
fairly with both religious parties; and there are cases of 
Catholics being punished for annoying their Protestant 
neighbors. He was also a zealous defender of his own 
authority even against the clergy, insisting, for instance, 
that under the old English law of mortmain they could not 
acquire land from the Indians without his consent. The 



74 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, i632-i( 



Growth 

of the 

Protestant 

element. 



English 
Civil War. 



The Puritan 

Common- 
wealth. 



Maryland Jesuits complained of Lord Baltimore's attitude, 
but the head of the order in England finally supported him. 
Under this liberal government, the proportion of Protestant 
settlers increased until they formed a clear majority. Some 
of them were ready to live quietly under the proprietary 
government. Others, however, were more aggressive, par- 
ticularly the considerable group of Puritans who, having 
suffered persecution in Virginia, accepted Lord Baltimore's 
invitation to settle in Maryland but soon became his most 
bitter antagonists. 

While the Virginians and Marylanders were struggling 
with their own American problems, their diificulties were 
increased by the outbreak of the great English Civil War. 
Ten years after the granting of the Maryland charter, 
Charles I was at war with the Long Parliament. Four 
years later his armies were defeated and dispersed and 
he himseH was a prisoner. Then came three years of con- 
fusion and uncertainty until in 1649 the radical Puritan 
party tried to solve the problem by the execution of the 
King. From 1649 to 1660 England was a republic, about half 
the time under the Protectorate of the great Puritan soldier, 
Oliver Cromwell. When this conflict broke out, a majority 
of the settlers in the Chesapeake colonies undoubtedly 
sympathized with the King. Virginia, in particular, was 
defiantly loyalist even after the King's execution, and 
presently declared its allegiance to his son, Charles II. 
When, therefore, the Puritan party was well in the saddle, 
the position of these loyalist colonies became decidedly 
awkward. As early as 1643 the Long Parliament began to 
interest itself in the colonies and appointed a commission on 
the subject, headed by the same Earl of Warwick who had 
formerly been an active member of the Virginia Company, 
and had subsequently tried to establish a Puritan colony 
on the island of Providence. 

For a time the parliamentary leaders were too busy to 



VIRGINIA UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH 75 

pay much attention to America, but they did not forget the Coercive 
loyalist attitude of the Virginians. In 1650 an ordinance ^"^^^"'■^^• 
was passed prohibiting trade with that province and the 
island of Barbados, which had taken a similar stand. The 
next year Parliament passed a Navigation Act which pro- 
hibited the export of Virginia tobacco in foreign ships and 
also named five commissioners to secure the submission of 
the colonists to the revolutionary government. Three of the 
five commissioners were sent from England; but as two of 
them were lost at sea the control of the commission fell into 
the hands of two Virginians. One of them was William 
Claiborne, who had not forgotten his old quarrel with Lord 
Baltimore; the other was Richard Bennett, a Puritan who had 
been alienated by Berkeley's intolerant church policy. From 
such commissioners the existing governments of Virginia 
and Maryland could hardly hope for sympathetic treat- 
ment. Wlien the commissioners reached Virginia in 1652, Common- 
Berkeley and his loyalist friends saw that they could not po^vcmment 
resist and the colony agreed to recognize the sovereign '^i Virginia, 
authority of Parliament. Berkeley returned to private life 
and for the next eight years Virginia was almost an 
independent republic. Governors were elected by the 
colonial assembly, which now claimed sovereign authority 
on behalf of the people. There was some discontent over 
the Navigation Act of 165 1, but on the whole this period 
was one of prosperity and rapid growth in population. 
Many of the newcomers were political prisoners sent over 
by the parliamentary government, or Cavaliers anxious to 
take refuge from the troubles at home. 

Lord Baltimore's problem was even more complicated. 
Besides the hostility of the Puritans in England and his 
old enemies in Virginia, he had now a strong Puritan ele- 
ment in his own province. In order to avoid criticism he 
appointed a Protestant governor with instructions to con- 
tinue the policy of toleration. At his suggestion also, the 



76 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 163 2 -1688 



The Tolera- 
tion Act of 
Maryland. 



Parliamen- 
tary com- 
missioners in 
Maryland. 



The Puritan 
revolt. 



assembly, composed partly of Catholics and partly of 
Protestants, passed the Toleration Act of 1649, an impor- 
tant landmark in the history of religious liberty in America. 
From a twentieth-century standpoint, it was not ideal; 
there was no toleration except for Christians, and denial 
of the doctrine of the Trinity was a capital offense. Never- 
theless, in its quite impartial treatment of Catholics and 
Protestants the law was unusually liberal. The prune 
motive was one of practical statesmanship, because "the 
inforcing of the conscience m matters of Religion hath fre- 
quently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence." 

The Puritans, however, were still dissatisfied; and their 
dissatisfaction increased when, during the temporary ab- 
sence of the Protestant governor, his CathoUc deputy 
issued a proclamation declaring allegiance to King Charles 
II. The proprietor v/as not responsible for this blunder, but 
his enemies promptly took advantage of it. Under these cir- 
cumstances, the same parliamentary commissioners who had 
dealt with Virginia undertook to settle the affairs of Mary- 
land as well. When they demanded of Governor Stone that 
he should submit to the authority of the English Common- 
wealth, he agreed; but he was presently removed for refus- 
ing to substitute in the legal documents of the province the 
title of the parhamentary government for that of the pro- 
prietor. Stone v/as later reinstated, but his troubles were 
by no means over. The Puritan settlers soon organized a 
strong anti-Catholic uprising. With the help of Claiborne 
and his fellow commissioners, Stone was again deposed and 
the government turned over to a revolutionary committee. 
The insurgents now called a new assembly, which was con- 
trolled by the extreme Protestant party; it amended the 
Toleration Act by excluding from its benefits practically 
everybody except the Puritans. 

Meantime, however, the so-called Rump Parliament in 
England had been dissolved and, Cromwell having become 



TPIE RESTORATION 77 

head of the government as Lord Protector, Baltimore Re&tab- 
assumed that the parHamentary commissioners in America ^j ^l^^ 
no longer had any authority. He consequently instructed proprietary 

/- ii'ii- •Tu-i government. 

his ofi&cers to reestablish his government in Maryland. The 
result was a pitched battle in which Governor Stone and his 
supporters were defeated and Stone himself became a pris- 
oner. The Puritans remained in power during the next two 
years, but Cromwell failed to support them and Lord Balti- 
more soon recovered control. One of the fundamental con- 
ditions under which his government was restored in 1657 
was the Toleration Act of 1649; but the friction between 
Protestants and Catholics continued to make the proprietor's 
position difficult and uncertain. 

The year 1660 was one of great importance for America The 
as well as for England. The English republican experiment ^^ °^^ *°°' 
came to an end and Charles 11 sat on the throne of his 
fathers, bringing back with him much of the old order in 
church and state — though some of the changes of the 
Puritan era had cut so deep that they could not be undone. 
The Restoration also had its echoes in America, especially 
in Virginia, where the loj^alists once more had a free hand. 
The assembly having called Berkeley back from his retirement 
and elected him governor, the choice was soon legalized by 
the King's commission. The old constitution of governor, 
councilors, and burgesses was now in working order and the 
Anglican Church was restored to its accustomed place. 

The population of Virginia was now growing rapidly. Growth of 
In 1671, Berkeley reported over 40,000, of whom about ""S""^- 
6000 were white servants; there were about 2000 negro 
slaves, or approximately one twentieth of the whole pop- 
ulation. About 1500 white servants were said to be coming 
in annually, chiefly English, with a few Scotch and Irish. 

In the next two decades the total population increased 
to about 60,000, with a much larger proportion of negroes, 
who were gradually displacing the white servants. Many 



78 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 



Development 
of negro 
slavery. 



The prob- 
lems of the 
tobacco 
growers. 



influences were at work to bring about this development 
of negro slavery, not only in Virginia but to a less extent in 
Maryland. English capitahsts were more and more interested 
in the slave trade, and companies were organized to 
carry on the business. Some of the most influential men in 
the Restoration government were also involved, and in 
1672 the Royal African Company was incorporated, 
with liberal privileges. Meantime, the Chesapeake planters 
came to believe that negro slaves were better suited to their 
conditions than the white servants. The important tobacco 
industry did not seem to demand more intelligence than 
could be secured from slave labor, which was more permanent 
tlian white service. The planter who bought a negro slave 
owned him for life and the children of a slave mother inherited 
her servile status, whereas white servants could be held only 
for a term of years. Besides, it was not thought necessary 
to spend so much money in providing food, shelter, and 
clothing for the negroes. Nevertheless, Virginia was nearly 
a century old before the plantation system was thoroughly 
established on the basis of negro slavery. 

The Virginians continued to feel the disadvantages of 
concentration in tobacco. They never knew what prices 
they would get in the English market, which was often 
depressed by excessive importations. Laws were passed 
to prevent overproduction, but it was hard to get cooperation 
among the tobacco-growing colonies. When legal regulation 
failed, illegal methods were sometimes used, as in the 
so-called tobacco-cutting riots. New attempts were made to 
establish other industries. Berkeley mentioned the begin- 
ning of silk culture and spoke somewhat less hopefully 
of small beginnings in the iron industry. Flax and hemp 
were also considered, but all this agitation brought compara- 
tively slight results. Tobacco continued to be exported 
mainly in English vessels; there were some freighters from 
New England but few ships were actually built and owned in 



VIRGINIA PLANTATIONS 79 

Virginia, The planter generally shipped his tobacco to a 
merchant in England, who sold it for him and expended the 
proceeds in English goods, including clothing, furniture, and 
tools, together with such luxuries as the planter could afford. 
Being quite uncertain about London prices for the things 
he sold and bought, the planter rarely knew what his balance 
in London was. Naturally, therefore, he often overdrew his 
account and got badly into debt. 

The economic unit in Virginia society was the plantation. Virginia 
These plantations, which tended to increase in size, were p'^^^'^'^^^'^^- 
scattered up and down the great rivers and the network of 
smaller streams which were the ordinary means of commu- 
nication throughout the whole district. Perhaps the nature 
of this early plantation life can be understood best by 
studying the career of an individual planter whose letters 
have been preserved. William Fitzhugh, like many other 
Virginia gentlemen, belonged to an English merchant family William 
with connections in London and Bristol. About 1670 he a^ypi^l' 
came out to practice law in Vurginia and after some early planter, 
struggles became very prosperous. By 1686, his holdings 
of land were large, including the thousand-acre plantation 
on which he lived and three otlier tracts, amounting in all 
to 23,000 acres. A large part of his home plantation was still 
covered with timber, but about three hundred acres were 
in "good hearty plantable land." Besides his comfortably 
furnished dwelhng house, there were on this part of his es- 
tate negro quarters with accommodations for twenty-nine 
slaves. Tobacco was his chief crop, but there were also 
cornfields, an orchard of 2500 apple trees, and stocks of 
cattle and hogs. Like his fellow-planters, he put his new 
capital largely into land and slaves; when he made his will 
in 1700 he had about 54,000 acres. From England, he im- 
ported clothing and other household goods, as well as an 
occasional white servant. At one time he asked his 
agent for a good housewife and the next year he announced 



8o 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688. 



The early 
westward 
movement. 



Abraham 
Wood. 



William 
Byrd. 



Virginia 
grievances. 



that he would pay "something extraordmary" for a good 
bricklayer or carpenter. Business had its ups and downs. 
Sometimes Fitzhugh was "utterly discouraged" by the 
low prices of tobacco, though not without hope that the 
"tobacco-cutting" riots might bring prices up again. 

While the older settlements were outgrowing the prim- 
itive conditions of pioneer life, those early trials were being 
reproduced among the people who were moving on from 
the coast plain up the rivers to a new frontier. In the 
middle years of the seventeenth century, a few Virginians 
at any rate were anxious to satisfy their curiosity about the 
country back of the narrow fringe of coast settlements. 
One such adventurous spirit was Captain Abraham Wood, 
and in 1671 a party sent out by him found tlieir way 
through the Blue Ridge to one of the tributaries of 
the Ohio River. The chief motive which led men 
toward the west was the fur trade. During this 
period important trading expeditions were sent westward, 
and southwestward into the Cherokee country of western 
Carolina. It was largely through this Indian trade that 
William Byrd and other leading Virginians of the time built 
up fortunes which they later invested in land and slaves. 
After these explorers and traders came the more permanent 
pioneer farmers, who found on the edge of the wilderness 
the free land which was no longer available in the tide- 
water. 

With all these evidences of a vigorous and healtliy de- 
velopment, the Virginia of the Restoration period was far 
from being a contented or harmonious community, and the 
prevailing discontent finally took shape in Bacon's Rebel- 
lion, the first really important popular uprising in American 
history. This discontent was due in part perhaps to the 
Navigation Acts, which to the great disgust of the Chesa- 
peake planters were continued and developed by the roy- 
alist parliaments after the Restoration. Not only must 



BERKELEY'S ADMINISTRATION 8 1 

the colonial trade be carried on in English shipping; but 
certain enumerated articles, including tobacco, could not be 
sent to Europe except by way of English ports. Vigorous, 
though unsuccessful, protests were made against this policy by 
Governor Berkeley and by John Bland, a London merchant 
who had relatives in Virginia. Gradually, however, the 
Virginians adjusted themselves to the new situation. They 
were more seriously disturbed by the lavish grants of land Grants to 
made by Charles II to some of his courtiers. While still in ''^^°"'^^^- 
exile, he had granted the "Northern Neck," between the 
Potomac and the Rappahannock, to some of his loyal fol- 
lowers. After his restoration to the throne the grant was 
renewed and it was proposed to establish a special juris- 
diction in this district, subject, however, to the general 
authority of the government of Virginia. In 1672 two 
noblemen. Lord Arlington and Lord Culpeper, were ma,de 
proprietary landlords for the whole of Virginia for thirty- 
one years; but the colonists protested so vigorously that 
this grant was withdrawn. Measures of this kind kept the 
Virginians in a state of constant anxiety for fear that they 
might be transferred from the direct jurisdiction of the 
Crown to the irresponsible control of mercenary courtiers. 

Though tlie colonists preferred to remain under the royal Dissatis- 
government, they were much dissatisfied with the existing Berkdcj^ 
administration. Many of them were convinced that affairs government, 
were being mismanaged by a political "machine," through 
which Governor Berkeley and his friends were promoting 
the special interests of their class. Berkeley seems to have 
been at first a rather successful and popular governor; 
but as he grew older his conservatism became more extreme 
and even his integrity was questioned. Similar charges were 
made against the councilors, a group of well-to-do plant- 
ers who kept a firm grip on the important oiSces and man- 
aged the land system in such a way as to give themselves 
more than their fair share of the best lands. Even the House 



82 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632-1688 



Sectionalism; 
tidewater 
and back 
country. 



Bacon and 
Berkeley. 



Bacon's 
Rebellion. 



of Burgesses was distrusted; sixteen years passed without 
a new election and tlie members got out of touch with their 
constituents. Taxation was said to be excessive and un- 
fairly distributed. This burden was especially resented be- 
cause money appropriated for defense and other public 
purposes seemed to be spent without tangible results. To a 
certain extent these divisions were on sectional lines. The 
frontiersmen believed that the government and the tide- 
water planters were doing little to protect them against the 
savages and that the governor in particular was unwilling 
to punish outrages for fear of lessening his profits in tlie 
Indian trade. 

These discontented elements found a leader in Nathaniel 
Bacon, a young man who came to the colony about 1674 
and soon took up some land near the frontier. Having 
unusual ability and a vigorous personality, with inilu- 
ential connections both in England and in Virginia, Bacon 
soon became a member of the governor's council; but the 
exposed situation of his estate on the upper James and 
the killing of one of his servants by the Indians led him 
to sympathize with the back-country people in their com- 
plaints against Governor Berkeley. Impatient of dela}''. 
Bacon organized an independent expedition against the 
Indians, which was immediately condemned by the gov- 
ernor as an unauthorized and rebellious proceeding. A 
popular uprising, however, compelled the governor to dis- 
solve the old assembly and call a new one for the purpose 
of instituting reforms and dealing witli problems of defense. 
The new assembly passed a series of bills intended to give 
the government a more representative character. It tried, 
for instance, to make the county and parish governments 
more democratic by putting them in the hands of officers 
elected by the people. 

The meeting of this reform assembly, did not, however, 
solve the problem. When Bacon came up to attend the 



BACON'S REBELLION 83 

session, the governor had him arrested, and though he was 
released on declaring his submission to the authorities, the 
antagonism between tlie two men continued. Bacon then 
left Jamestown, only to return later at the head of an armed 
force which compelled the governor to commission him as 
its leader in an expedition against the Indians. Having 
yielded only under pressure, Berkeley soon issued a new 
proclamation denouncing Bacon as a rebel, and a small 
civil war followed, in which the governor was defeated and 
compelled to leave the capital. It is hard to say just how 
far Bacon meant to go in his revolutionary measures. He 
was charged with being ready to resist even the King's 
forces if they were sent out against him; there seemed 
to be some danger also of his being supported by rebellious 
elements in the neighboring provinces, particularly in North 
CaroHna. In his own proclamations, however, Bacon 
insisted that he was merely defending the people of Virginia 
against the corrupt conduct of the governor and his asso- 
ciates. Whatever his plans may have been, they were cut Bacon's 
short by his sudden death and there was no other leader ^^^'^• 
who could hold his followers together. Berkeley now re- Collapse 
covered his authority, treating his defeated opponents with °e5eUion 
unnecessary harshness. The rebels and their supposed sym- 
pathizers were tried by military process and several were 
executed. 

Meantime, the home government, several thousand 
miles away from the scene of action, and receiving news 
only at long intervals, had to act very much in the dark; 
but commissioners were sent over to enforce the King's author- 
ity and report on the causes of the rebellion. They discov- 
ered on their arrival that the rebellion had been suppressed Recall of 
and that their first business must be to check the arbitrary ^^ ^^^' 
proceedings of the governor. Berkeley was recalled to 
England, where he died soon afterwards, and one of the 
commissioners was put in charge of the government. In 



84 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632- 1688 



Failure of 
the reform 
movement. 



The 

Chesapea'i! 
colonies 
in 16S8. 



accordance with the King's instructions, a careful investiga- 
tion followed, in which the colonists were given a chance to 
state their grievances. The commissioners finally reported, 
condemning the rebels but recognizing the justice of some 
of their complaints. Perhaps their most important work 
was the establishment of satisfactory relations with the 
Indians. 

On the whole the popular movement led by Bacon was 
a failure. Reform measures passed by the assembly of 
1676 were repealed; in other respects too the hopes of 
the Virginians were disappointed. When the rebellion broke 
out a serious effort was being made to secure a new charter 
protecting the constitutional rights and economic interests 
of the province. A so-called charter was actually issued, 
but it proved to be of slight importance. The rebellion 
had also failed to weaken seriously the control of govern- 
ment by a comparatively small ofhceholding class, and 
Berkeley's successors, Lord Culpeper and Lord Howard 
of Effingham, were not less arbitrary or corrupt than the 
old Cavalier governor. Berkeley, with all his faults, was 
a real Virginian, with a permanent interest in the province; 
the new men were courtiers, chiefly concerned with their 
own personal fortunes. For a time it looked as if the 
privileges of the assembly would be seriously impaired, 
though in tlie end this attempt was given up and the rep- 
resentative principle was preserved. 

At the close of the first quarter century after the Res- 
toration the political situation on both sides of the Potom.ac 
was unstable. In Virginia there was much discontent not 
only with the royal governors but also with the large planters, 
who sat in the council, held other important provincial 
offices, and controlled the local administration. The people 
of Maryland had similar grievances against their govern- 
ment, which was largely in the hands of the proprietor and 
his little group of officeholders; but here there were 



NEW ENGLISH COMMONWEx\LTHS 85 

Other complications. The proprietor who was responsible 
for the government of the colonists was also their landlord, 
with private mterests often opposed to theirs. Religious 
differences also mterfered with mutual understanding. 
On the whole, the proprietors tried to deal fairly with the 
Protestant settlers, who now formed a large majority of 
the population; but the latter complained that offices 
were too largely filled by Catholics, and this jealousy, whether 
reasonable or not, was a standing menace to the proprietary 
government. 

The details of these political controversies are often 
confused and uninteresting. Yet, if we try to see them in 
proper perspective, one really im.portant fact stands out. 
After about three quarters of a century of colonizing effort, New English 
there were now two vigorous English commonwealths, weaUhT 
with a combined population of perhaps 80,000, facing each 
other across the Potomac. Their institutions were largely 
modeled on those of the mother country; but they were 
also well rooted in the American soil and quite capable of 
making trouble for royal officials who failed to respect 
the colonial point of view. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, I, chs. IX, XVIII; and II, 63-65, General 
79-93. Fiske, J., Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, I, chs. VIII, accounts. 
IX; and II, chs. X, XI, XIII. Johnston, M., Pioneers of the 
Old South, chs. IX-XIII. Tyler, L. G., England and America, 
chs. VI- VIII, with Andrews, C. M., Colonial SelJ-Government, 
chs. XIII-XV. 

Browne, W. H., Maryland a Palatinate, chs. I-VIII; and his Founding of 
George and Cecilius Calvert. Eggleston, '£., Beginners of a Nation, ^'y^^"- 
bk. Ill, ch. I. Articles by B. C. Steiner in Johns Hopkins Studies, 
XXI, XXIV, XXV (detailed narrative of early }^ears). Shea, J. G., 
Catholic Church in Colonial Days, 1-85 (scholarly account by a 
Catholic historian). Institutional development may be studied 



86 



THE CHESAPEAKE COLONIES, 1632- 1( 



Maryland 
sources. 



Develop- 
ment of 
Virginia. 



Virginia 
sources. 



in Mereness, N. D., Maryland as a Proprietary Province; and 
Osgood, American Colonies, II. 

Charter in Hall, C. C, Narratives of Early Maryland, 101-112; 
extracts in Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 12. Descriptive 
material in Hall, Narratives, and Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 
72-77, 84 (Toleration Act; extract also in Macdonald, no. 21). 

Wertenbaker, T. J., Virginia and the Stuarts, chs. IV-VIII. 
Osgood, H. L., American Colonies, III, chs. VIII (excellent 
account of Bacon's rebellion), IX. See also for economic and 
institutional development the works of Bruce, cited in ch. Ill, 
and Bassett, J. S., Writings of William Byrd, pp. ix-xl. 

Extracts in Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos, 68-71, 85-88, espe- 
cially no. 70 (Berkeley's report, 1671). Andrews, C. M., Narra- 
tives of the Insurrections, 11-141 (Bacon's rebellion). Interesting 
Fitzhugh letters illustrating social life, in Virginia Magazine of 
History and Biography, I, II. 



CHAPTER V 
NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 

In most of the English colonies m America, the chief Promoters 
promoters did not themselves become permanent colonists, colonists, 
but contented themselves with furnishing capital, sending 
out settlers, managing affairs from England, and drawing 
such profits as they could from their investments. This 
was at first true even in the case of New England. In the 
end, however, that section was left open for enterprises 
of a different kind, in which the leaders actually crossed 
the sea with their followers to build new homes and com- 
monwealths. 

The New England seaboard was fairly well known to Early plans 
English seamen by the beginning of the seventeenth century England, 
and a number of exploring voyages during the next few years 
helped to stimulate interest in it, especially as a profitable 
base for the fur trade and the fisheries. Out of this in- 
terest grew the Plymouth Company, which, under the first 
Virginia charter, made a,n unsuccessful attempt to plant a 
colony at the mouth of the Kennebec River. An important 
event in the development of English knowledge about New 
England was John Smith's voyage of 1614, in which he ex- 
plored the seaboard with considerable care. In a book 
published shortly afterwards, he set forth in glowing terms 
the possibihties of this region. After Smith's voyage, Sir 
Ferdinando Gorges and some of the other men who had 
been interested in the old Plymouth Company determined 
to take advantage of these opportunities. Accordingly 
they secured from the King a charter which incorporated 

87 



88 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



The Council 
for New 
England. 



Sir 

Ferdinando 

Gorges. 



Failure of 

proprietary 

government. 



Economic 
and religious 
motives. 



tliem as the Council for New England with the right to 
colonize and govern the vast territory lying between the 
fortieth and forty-eighth parallels of latitude and stretch- 
ing across the continent to the Pacific. This was done in 
complete disregard of the Dutch traders on the Hudson 
as weU as the struggling French settlements of Acadia and 
the St. Lawrence valley. This patent was surrendered fif- 
teen years later, but during that time it had a marked 
influence on New England history. 

The most conspicuous and active member of the New 
England Council was Gorges. His ideal seems to have been 
the organization of a great dominion of New England, with 
subordinate proprietary governments controlled by indi- 
viduals or trading companies. Another important figure 
in the Council, as well as in national poUtics, was Robert, 
Earl of Warwick, who, like several other members of the 
Council, had been actively associated with the Virginia 
Company; he was soon taking a keen interest in various 
plans for Puritan colonization. From time to time the 
Council made grants to individuals and companies for the 
estabhshment of trading and fishing stations; in two in- 
stances proprietary governments were seriously undertaken, 
one in Maine by Gorges himself, and the other in New 
Hampshire by Captain John Mason. Both these enter- 
prises failed, but other grants proved to be of lasting im- 
portance, notably those which gave the Puritan pioneers 
of Plymouth and Massachusetts their first legal titles to 
the land they occupied and enabled them to begin a unique 
series of experiments in colonial self-government. 

In the founding of these self-governing Puritan colonies, 
economic motives cannot, of course, be ignored. New 
England, like Virginia, could not have developed as it did 
if large numbers of people had not believed that they could 
make an easier, or a better, living for themselves in America. 
Yet, when all is said, it cannot be denied that religion, in 



PURITANISM 89 

the form of Puritanism, played a greater part there than in 
any other English colonies, with the possible exception of 
Pennsylvania. To understand New England, therefore, it 
is necessary to begin with some study of seventeenth-cen- 
tury Puritanism. 

Definitions of Puritanism are numerous and generally Puritanism, 
unsatisfactory. Many things commonly called Puritan are 
not peculiar to Puritans; others are characteristic of par- 
ticular kinds of Puritans, but not of all. It is safe to begin, 
however, by saying that Puritans were radical Protestants. 
Wliatever their differences on other points, they were all 
dissatisfied with the "middle way," taken by the Church of 
England, between communion with the Roman Church on 
the one side and thoroughgoing Protestantism on the other. 
By thoroughgoing Protestantism they meant, above all, 
getting back from the traditional practices and ideas of the 
medieval church to what they considered a more completely 
Biblical Christianity. For them the final authority in relig- 
ion was the Bible, rather than the clergy or the church as a 
whole. 

In their interpretation of the Bible, the Puritans were Calvinism, 
influenced by certain great teachers, of whom the most im- 
portant was the French reformer, John Calvin. Under the 
guidance of these teachers, they concluded that Biblical 
Christianity required simpler forms of worship than those 
of the Roman and Anglican communions. The use of art 
to symbolize religious truth seemed to them full of danger, 
likely to obscure rather than reveal spiritual truth. They 
believed in the sacraments of baptism and the communion, 
but laid special stress on preaching. The Puritans held 
that church organization also needed to be simplified; they 
found no warrant in the Bible for the authority then exer- 
cised by the English bishops; some of the radicals wished 
to abolish that office altogether, though others were content 
with lessening its powers. Like most Protestants, they 



90 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



Puritan 
morality. 



Different 
kinds of 
Puritans. 



The 

Separatists. 



emphasized the principle of salvation by faith rather than 
by compUance with ecclesiastical forms and they accepted 
Calvin's doctrine that saving faith came only to those who 
had been divinely chosen or "elected." The English Puri- 
tans of the SLxteenth and seventeenth centuries felt bound to 
protest against lax standards of morality, and many of them 
were doubtless excessively severe in their judgments of 
themselves and of other people, often condemning, as sin- 
ful, enjoyments which seemed to others quite innocent. 
This state of mind, however, is not peculiar to Puritans 
strictly so called; it has been characteristic of many in- 
tensely religious persons, regardless of the particular creed 
they happen to profess. A more distinctive characteristic 
of the English Puritans was their insistence on strict obedi- 
ence to Old Testament precepts about Sabbath observance. 

Agreeing fairly well in these fundamental matters, the 
Puritans were much divided among tliemselves about de- 
tails of doctrine, modes of worship, and ideas of church 
government; and out of these differences there developed 
finally a large number of sects. At the beginning of the 
colonial era, the most important line of cleavage among 
these people was on the question of their relation to the 
national church — between the Puritans of various shades 
who wished to stay in the church and try to mold it in 
accordance with their own views and those who considered 
it so hopelessly wrong that all Christians should withdraw 
from it. This Separatist group became the pioneers of 
Puritan colonization in New England and though very few 
in numbers exerted an important influence on those who 
followed. 

The distinguishing characteristic of the Separatists was 
their conception of the church. They rejected wholly the 
idea of a national church. To them a church was an asso- 
ciation of the true Christian believers who lived in any 
particular community, a carefully sitted group of those 



THE PILGRIMS 9 1 

who were divinely "elected" to be saved. Instead of an 
episcopal system of government, they believed in a "con- 
gregational " organization in which the minister and other 
church officers were chosen by the members. At the end 
of Elizabeth's reign the Separatist groups were few and 
weak; there were some scholars and gentry among them 
but on the whole they came from the less influential classes. 
The government regarded their doctrines as dangerous to 
good order in church and state, and they were condemned 
even by many of the Puritans. On the whole, they were 
strongest in the eastern counties and in such towns as 
Norwich, where there had been a considerable immigration 
of radical Protestants from the Netherlands. During the 
early years of James I, the Separatists were reinforced by 
a number of clergy and laymen who were disappointed by 
his unfriendly attitude toward Puritan elements in the 
national church; but they continued to be a small and 
persecuted group, forced to meet in secret or to take refuge 
abroad. In Holland they found an asylum among the 
Dutch Calvinists and formed a few churches of their own. 

One little Separatist community, destined to play a The Scrooby 
notable part in American history, was formed at Scrooby *^°°S''^^^ 
Manor, in Nottinghamshire near where it joins the coun- 
ties of York and Lincoln. Curiously enough, the manor 
house in which these people met belonged to the Archbishop 
of York; one of the archbishops of this province during 
Elizabeth's reign was the father of Sir Edwin Sandys, the 
liberal leader in the Virginia Company, and both father 
and son were sympathetic toward the Puritans. Most of the 
members of this little congregation were obscure people, 
but there were two interesting men among them. William 
Brewster, who kept the manor house, was then a postmaster. 
Brewster had studied at Cambridge University and was a 
considerable collector of books on politics and theology. One 
of their teachers, John Robinson, was a man of real Intel- 



92 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



The Pil- 
grims in 
Holland. 



Reasons for 

leaving 

Holland. 



Organiza- 
tion of the 
enterprise. 



lectual distinction. He held for a time a fellowship at Cam- 
bridge University; but his heretical opinions shut him out 
from a career in the university or in the church, and he 
became instead a prolific and able writer on Calvinistic 
theology and the congregational theory of church government. 

With others of their faith, several members of the 
Scrooby congregation took refuge in Holland, and finally 
settled in the city of Leyden, where for twelve years they 
engaged in various trades and industries, while Robinson 
became a member of the Leyden University and took part 
in the theological controversies of the time. It soon became 
evident, however, tliat it would be difficult for these "Pil- 
grims" to preserve their separate community life, their 
English nationality, and their distinctive religious ideals. 
It was not easy, either, to make a satisfactory living under 
these conditions. To all these trials there was added the 
disturbing prospect of a reopening of the war between the 
Dutch and the Spaniards. It was not strange, therefore, 
that the thoughts of the Pilgrims turned to the New World 
in the hope of beginning tliere a new life under more favor- 
able conditions. They hoped also, to use the words of one 
of their leaders, that they might lay a foundation "for the 
propagating and advancing the gospell of the Kingdom of 
Christ m those remote parts of the world; yea though they 
should be but even as stepping stones unto others for the 
performing of so great a work." The decision to go to 
America was made only after much debate, in which the 
hardships and dangers of the enterprise were pomted out; 
but the braver spirits insisted that "all great and honor- 
able actions are accompanied with great difficulties," and must 
be "enterprised and overcome with answerable courages." 

Some difficult business problems had to be solved before 
the project could be carried into effect. For the land on 
which the settlement was to be made, the Pilgrims 
turned to the Virginia Company, which, under the leader- 



THE FOUNDING OF PLYMOUTH 93 

ship of Sandys, wanted settlers and was not unfriendly to 
the Puritans. A grant was finally secured, and their next 
task was to reach an understanding with the English govern- 
ment. In the effort to secure the King's approval, they 
took pains to declare then: loyalty to the Crown and stated 
their reUgious opinions in such a way as to cause the least 
possible offense. They were so far successful that James I 
agreed to " connive at them " as long as they behaved 
peaceably. A most serious problem was that of getting 
capital and it was finally solved by a partnership between 
the Pilgrims and a group of London business men. As 
in the case of Virginia, a joint-stock company was formed, 
with shares divided between the emigrants and the London 
partners. A Virginia precedent was followed also in setting 
up for the first seven years a communal system in which 
all the land was held and worked for the company. 

Finally all these difficulties were overcome and on 
September 6, 1620, the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth. 
Its company consisted chiefly of members of the Leyden 
congregation, some of whom, however, including Robinson 
himself, were left behind; some of the rest were Separatists 
also, but others were merely employees of the company. 
After a stormy voyage of more than two months the May- 
flower made land in what is now Provincetown harbor, on 
Cape Cod; another month passed before they finally selected The found- 
as the place of their settlement the harbor of Plymouth. Plymouth.^ 
December was a bad season for beginning a new settlement 
on the New England coast, and for the first year the death 
rate of the Plymouth people was comparable with that at 
Jamestown. The Pilgrims fortunately estabUshed friendly 
relations with some of their Indian neighbors — relations 
which were maintained for more than fifty years. As com- 
pared with Virginia, the period of extreme hardship was 
short. Though there was a scarcity of food for some time, 
the worst was over by the end of the first year. 



94 NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 

Economic Here at Plymouth the Pilgrims were outside the jurisdic- 

colony*^ ^^°^ ^^ ^^^ Virginia Company and simply squatters on land 

which belonged to the Council for New England. With 
the help of influential friends, however, they secured in 1621 
a grant from the council. This was enlarged in 1630 in 
favor of some of the principal settlers; and subsequently 
transferred to the colony as a whole. After a few years 
of unsatisfactory experience, the communal plan was 
abandoned and the land was allotted to individuals, 
first temporarily and then permanently. The colonists were 
also able before long to buy out the London partners and 
thus secure complete control of their own business affairs. 
Under these conditions, "New Plymouth" developed into 
a community of small farmers with some interest in the 
fisheries and a fairly prosperous trade in furs, not only with 
the Indians in their immediate neighborhood but in places 
as far away as the Maine coast and the Connecticut 
valley. 
The po- The political status of Plymouth was always precarious; 

of the colony, the colonists never received a charter from the King, and 
the Council for New England probably had no right to 
authorize their government. Left as they were without 
strictly legal authority, they proceeded to organize a prac- 
The May- tically republican system. The famous "Mayflower Com- 
Co^mpact. pact" which they adopted just before landing was not a 
constitution, but simply an agreement to abide by the will 
of the majority. For the business of a small community 
lilce tliis only the simplest kind of organization was neces- 
sary, and that was all they had. They chose a governor 
every year to handle some necessary business and represent 
them in their relations with the outside world; later, as the 
business developed, assistants were similarly elected. Neces- 
sary regulations or laws were made by the settlers at a general 
meeting. For a time the town of Plymouth and the colony 
of New Plymouth were practically identical; but as new 



INFLUENCE OF PLYMOUTH 95 

towns were established the general assembly of all the free- 
men was replaced by a gathering of representatives from the 
towns. Much of the success of this simple but practical 
government was doubtless due to its governor, William William 
Bradford, who was first chosen a few months after the land- ^'■^'^^'^'■'^• 
ing and reelected year after year. He was not only an effi- 
cient leader but something of a scholar as well; his history 
of the colony is likely always to stand as a classic of early 
American literature. 

The Pilgrims were now free to carry out their ideals of influence 
religious worship and church government. The congrega- Plymouth 
tional church system which they established embodied the colony- 
same principle of democratic self-government as the civil 
order which they built upon the Mayflower Compact, and 
it had a definite influence upon the later Puritan colonies. 
In this as in other respects, Plymouth is important primarily 
as the pioneer in a new movement. Always small and com- 
paratively poor, it was soon overshadowed, and finally 
annexed, by the younger and more prosperous Massachusetts 
Bay Colony. Nevertheless, the Plymouth Pilgrims will 
always be remembered as having pointed the way which 
was followed by others to far greater achievements; they 
had truly been "as a stepping stone unto others." 

Besides the colony of New Plymouth, which occupied Early settle- 
only a small area in the southeastern corner of the present Massachu- 
state of Massachusetts, there were by 1630 a number of ^'^"^ ^^y- 
small settlements around the shores of Massachusetts Bay, 
based upon grants by the Council for New England. None 
of these grants, however, has any lasting importance for 
American history, except one; that is the one made by the 
council in 1628 to the Massachusetts Bay Company. On 
the basis of this grant, confirmed the next year by a royal 
charter, there was established the strongest of all the Puri- 
tan commonwealths, and, indeed, the strongest colony 
planted up to that time by the English in any part of America. 



96 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



The 
Puritan 
outlook 
in 1629. 



Mutual 
intolerance. 



This new Puritan emigration, unlike that of the Pilgrims, 
stood in the closest relation to the central issues of English 
national life. Its leaders were members of a great national 
party, some of whom fought the battles of parliamentary 
government and the Puritan faith in England, while others 
saw their best opportunity for attaining their ideals in the 
founding of new commonwealths in America. 

To the typical Puritan of 1629, the European prospect 
seemed very dark. After more than a decade of fighting in 
Germany, the Protestants seemed to be badly beaten there. 
In France the uprisings of Huguenot nobles and cities had 
been crushed by the great cardinal-statesman, Richelieu, 
notwithstanding a badly managed English intervention in 
their behalf. At home Charles I and Bishop Laud, his chief 
ecclesiastical adviser, were suspected by the Puritans of 
desiring to undo the results of the Reformation. Laud had 
little more sympathy with the papacy than the Puritans, 
but he and his "high church" associates were undoubtedly 
trying to restore some of the old ceremonial; and that 
meant, from a Puritan point of view, a return to Rome. It 
also seemed to the Puritans that Laud and his friends were 
getting away from orthodox views in theology, more particu- 
larly from the Calvinistic teaching about "election" which 
for a time had a strong hold even among the Anglican 
bishops. 

Neither side was really tolerant. Laud wanted to make 
everyone conform to his ideas of ceremonial, and episcopal 
authority; the Puritans, while claiming their own right to 
vary from the prescribed services of the church, were fiercely 
intolerant of any departures from Calvinistic orthodoxy and 
denounced the King for his encouragement of Sunday sports. 
The Puritans, for the most part, did not wish to leave the 
church; but rather to reform and control it. For the present, 
however, the King and the "high church" men seemed to 
be having their own way. Nonconforming clergymen were 



MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY 97 

suffering persecution, and the members of Laud's party 
were receiving the important appointments in the church. 

In pohtics, conditions seemed equally discouraging, for The Puritan 
most Puritans believed that the cause of Protestantism was English 
closely bound up with that of free parliamentary govern- f«''^'<^- 
ment. In 1628, the House of Commons forced King Charles 
to accept the Petition of Right, forbidding various forms of 
taxation without consent of ParUament and also forbidding 
the arbitrary imprisonment of accused persons without due 
process of law. Questions arose, however, as to the interpre- 
tation of the Petition, and the parliamentary party charged 
the King with breaking his word. In the Parliament of 1629, 
the illegal acts of the King and the so-called "popish" meas- 
ures of Laud were violently attacked, with the result that 
the King dissolved Parliament, imprisoned some of his oppo- 
nents, and got on for ten years without any parliament at 
all. The King's principal advisers during this period of 
autocratic rule were Laud and tlie very able, though some- 
times high-handed, statesman, Sir Thomas Wentworth, 
better known by his later title as the Earl of Strafford. 
Witli this gloomy outlook in the Old World, it seemed to 
many Puritans that the best way of preparing for a brighter 
day was to leave Europe to its fate for the present and try 
to build up in America "a bulwark against the Kingdom of "a bulwark 
Anti-Christ." There they trusted the Lord would "create Anti"christ.'" 
a new heaven and a new earth, " "new churches and a new 
commonwealth together." 

Puritan ideals are not at all apparent, however, in the The Massa- 
businesslike document by which the Council for New Eng- company. ^^ 
land gave to the Massachusetts Bay Company the territory 
extending from three miles north of the Merrimac to three 
miles south of the Charles River, with a westward extension 
to the Pacific. The main object proposed was to make money 
out of the fisheries and the fur trade and to send out colo- 
nists who would engage in these industries. Presently such 



98 



NEW ENGLAND TIONEERS 



The charter 
of 1629. 



The 

Cambridge 
Agreement 
and the 
great mi- 
gration. 



Signers 
of the _ 
Cambridge 
Agreement. 



a colony was sent out to Salem on the north shore of Massa- 
chusetts Bay under a governor appointed by the company. 
The royal charter of 1629 which gave tlie company legal 
authority to govern its colonists seems equally innocent of 
any Puritan design. On its face, it is like many other 
colonial charters giving English corporations the right to 
govern the people whom they sent across the sea. There 
was, however, one mysterious feature of this document which 
made it an effective instrument for very different purposes. 
The absence of any clause fixing the head office of the com- 
pany in London made possible the transfer of control from 
mere promoters at home to actual colonists in America. 
Thus the charter of a commercial corporation became the 
constitution of a self-governing commonwealth — the means 
of carrying on a radical experiment in church and state. 

By 1629 a number of Puritan gentlemen were ready to 
take advantage of such an opportunity as this charter offered; 
and in August twelve of them, only six of whom were 
original members of the company, signed the "Cambridge 
Agreement," promising to migrate to New England not 
later than March, 1630, provided the government of the 
company, with the charter itself, should be entrusted to 
those members who became actual colonists. Shortly after- 
wards, this condition was met; new officers were elected and 
John Winthrop, one of the signers of the agreement, was 
chosen governor. Preparations were vigorously pushed, and 
by March, 1630, Winthrop set sail for New England with a 
company of emigrants large enough to require eleven ships. 
Thus began the great migration, which in ten years took 
something like twenty thousand people to New England. 

Some idea of the leaders in this movement can be gained 
by studying the signatures to the Cambridge Agreement. 
Two of the signers had married sisters of the Earl of Lincoln, 
a Puritan leader of the parliamentary party; with them 
was Thomas Dudley, who had been a steward of the Earl's 




John Winthrop 



JOHN WINTHROP 99 

estate. Another notable figure was Sir Richard Saltonstall; 
though he did not settle permanently m New England, he 
had a long line of New England descendants and was him- 
self an active promoter of Puritan policies on both sides of 
the Atlantic, There were other men of force and ability 
among the early leaders; but, on the whole, the man who 
best represented the character and ideals of the colony was 
Governor Winthrop. 

John Winthrop belonged to a substantial family of joim 
country gentlemen, from whom he inherited the manor of Wmthrop. 
Groton in Suffolk, one of the "eastern counties" which 
played an important part in the Civil War on the Puritan 
side and from which a large proportion of the Massachusetts 
emigrants came. Winthrop was born in the year of the 
Spanish Armada and was, therefore, about forty-two when 
he began his American career. He studied for a short time 
at Cambridge University, but an early marriage took him 
away from his studies. He did, however, study law after- 
wards; and as lord of the manor, justice of the peace, and 
attorney in the Court of Wards, he was accustomed to 
legal business. His desire to migrate probably came in part 
from economic causes; though he had a fairly good estate, 
the demands on his income were heavy, including the edu- 
cation of his sons at Dublin and Cambridge Universities. 
Nevertheless, the serious reader of Winthrop's family letters 
must feel that the religious motive was uppermost in his 
mmd — that he hoped to bear his part in the establishment 
of an ideal Christian community. 

An important part in the new enterprise was taken by a Puritan 
group of Puritan clergymen, who were consulted in England ^'^^^' 
and who accompanied the emigrants to their new home. 
They were generally university graduates, ordained in the 
Church of England but unwilling to conform to the Angli- 
can system as interpreted by Laud. The ablest of these John 
ministers was John Cotton, a fellow of Emmanuel College, 



lOO 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



Mingling of 
religious and 
economic 
motives. 



Rapid de- 
velopment. 



Cambridge, and afterwards the popular vicar of an Anglican 
parish in the seaport town of Boston, England, a name soon 
to be made more famous by the younger and greater Boston 
in Massachusetts. After trying for many years to reconcile 
Puritan ideas and practices with his position in the estab- 
lished church, Cotton was cited before the High Commis- 
sion and forced to take refuge in Massachusetts. There 
he was much admired and had the satisfaction of seeing his 
ideals of church and state to a large extent realized. 

It is not so easy to tell what were the thoughts and pur- 
poses of the many thousand obscure emigrants who followed 
the more conspicuous clergy and gentry. Some undoubtedly 
sympathized heartily with the hopes of their leaders. One 
of these "plain people," Edward Johnson, left behind him 
a book called The Wonder-Working Providence of Sion's 
Saviour in New England, whose very title suggests the strong 
religious feeling which inspired hun to do his modest part 
in the establishment of a new Christian state. Besides these 
ardent Puritans, there were many others — yeomen, tenant 
farmers, mechanics, and small tradesmen, who were attracted 
to the New World chiefly by the desire for land and better 
homes. In the eastern and midland counties, particularly, 
this was a period of serious economic unrest. 

The early development of Massachusetts was much 
more rapid than that of the Chesapeake colonies. Virginia 
after seventeen years of strenuous effort had only about 
1 200 inhabitants; Massachusetts after thirteen years had 
more than 16,000. The new colony did not escape altogether 
the tragic features of pioneering; two hundred settlers died 
during the first year. After that, however, there was noth- 
ing to compare witli the terrible mortality which for nearly 
twenty years seemed to carry oS the Vu-ginia settlers almost 
as fast as the company could send them out. The rapid 
growth of Massachusetts is all the more striking because 
many of the first settlers went out within the first ten years 



MASSACHUSETTS BAY lOl 

to found other colonies, which soon developed a vigorous, 
independent life of their own. 

The early history of Massachusetts is associated almost Geographic 
entirely with a small area around the shores of Massachusetts ^^^^°'^^- 
Bay. On the south, it did not include more than the present 
suburban area of Boston; to the northward, there was the 
company's first settlement at Salem, and a few little villages 
beyond Cape Ann. The whole stretch of coast line may be 
covered to-day in a motor trip of a few hours. From the 
point of view of a farmer accustomed to the rich lands of 
the Mississippi valley, the region has few attractions. The 
ground close to the shore is hilly, with outcropping rock 
almost everywhere, and the New England farmer, except in 
the comparatively fertile valley of the Connecticut River, 
has had to work hard for meager returns. The Massachusetts 
seaboard also lacked great, hospitable, tidal rivers like those 
of Virginia to furnish easy transportation through the 
country. So the settlements tended to cling more closely 
to the sea, which was the main highway of colonial commerce. 
Nevertheless, in New England as elsewhere, farming was the 
essential foundation of community life. Upon the farmers 
with their Indian corn and their wheat rested the more dis- 
tinctive and conspicuous New England activities of com- 
merce and the fisheries. This was not a kind of agriculture 
which could thrive on ignorant labor and easy-going methods; 
it required intelligent individual industry working on lines 
of community cooperation. Here land was farmed not in 
large plantations with half-savage negro slaves, but mainly 
by small proprietors with the help of a few "hired men." 

One matter in which these settlers were deeply interested New 

England 

was the system of land tenure; here Massachusetts, and land system. 
New England in general, stood out in sharp contrast to the 
other colonies. The original title was, as elsewhere, con- 
sidered to be in the King, though the colonists generally 
recognized the Indian title also and often acquired it by 



.•■ ■ ■ij » -». 



I02 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



Community 
spirit. 



Lumber and 
fish. New 
England 
commerce. 



peaceful purchase. From the King, through the Council 
for New England, the legal title passed to the General Court 
of the Massachusetts Bay Company, which after the transfer 
of the charter became practically the legislature of the 
colony. The actual settlement of a particular neighborhood 
ordinarily began with a grant by the General Court to a 
group of proprietors, who proceeded to lay out a town and 
make allotments to individual settlers. The holders of these 
allotments became real owners, with no feudal services and 
no quitrents. These freehold lands were, however, held 
subject to the welfare of the community as a whole; and, 
as in England, there were common lands — meadow, pasture, 
or woodland — in which the inhabitants had a joint interest. 
Community spirit was emphasized by tlie fact that many 
New England settlements were made by church congrega- 
tions, whose members, sometimes led by their pastors, had 
emigrated together and wished to Uve together in their 
new homes. Out of these conditions developed also a cer- 
tain exclusiveness; the early New England towns were 
extremely careful about the admission of new settlers, some- 
times insisting that no one should acquire land without the 
consent of the town. 

Generally speaking, New England agriculture could not 
do much more than supply the local market; there was no 
agricultural product like tobacco to exchange in large quan- 
tities for European goods. Indeed, Massachusetts ulti- 
mately came to depend for some of its wheat and flour upon 
New York and the colonies farther south. New England 
soil did, however, furnish one important article of export: 
the forests provided abundant supplies of timber, some- 
times made up into ships which were occasionally sold 
abroad, and sometimes cut into various kinds of lumber for 
export to the West Indies and even to Europe. The sea 
itself, moreover, furnished the New Englanders with another 
important staple. There were the small-scale fisheries near 



MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNMENT 103 

their own shores, and tlic cod fisheries on the Banks of New- 
foundland, reached by more venturesome voyages. For New 
England, as for old England, the fisheries were indeed a 
''nursery of seamen," and seamen of a particularly hardy 
breed. The uses of fish were varied: it furnished food for 
tlie people, fertilizer for farms, and an essential article of 
trade, especially to the island colonies. Thus Massachusetts 
like Virginia had its staple exports, but while the Virginians 
depended mainly on European shipping and carried on their 
trade almost entirely with England, the New Englanders 
built their own ships and soon developed an important foreign 
trade. A certain independence was, therefore, a charac- 
teristic feature of New England commerce. 

Puritans, like other men, had to face economic facts; Economic 
and before long they had won from the land and from the and^^a^"'^ 
sea a good deal more than a bare living. Meantime theii- "Bible Com- 
leaders, at least, were quite sure that man does not "live 
by bread alone." While the farmers were planting corn and 
the fishermen were going down to the sea in ships, some 
among them were working hard on the foundations of that 
"Bible Commonwealth" which they hoped would serve 
not only themselves and their children, but perhaps also 
the troubled peoples of the Old World. 

The legal basis of the whole experiment was the royal Government 

. , 1 • 1 ITT" 1 11- under the 

charter. By this document, which Winthrop and his asso- first charter. 
ciates brought over with them, almost unlimited authority 
for the management of colony business was put in the 
hands of the stocldiolders, or "freemen," of the company. 
The decisions of the freemen in the "General Court," or 
stockholders' meeting, were to be carried into effect by tlie 
governor and assistants, who corresponded roughly to the 
president and directors of a present-day corporation. These 
executive officers were to be chosen annually by the free- 
men and had little independent authority. Almost the 
only limitation on the powers of the General Court, other 



104 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



Church 

membership 
a qualifica- 
tion for 
voters. 



The Puritan 
oligarchy. 



than a general acknowledgment of allegiance to the King, 
was the requirement that colonial laws must not be in 
conflict with the laws of England. It was this businesslike 
charter which the founders of Massachusetts developed into 
the constitution of a practically republican government. 

The first problem was to decide what people in the 
colony should exercise tliese hberal powers. Only a few 
members of the company had crossed the ocean, and if all 
of them had come they would still have been only an insig- 
nificant fraction of the whole population. Certainly this 
handful of people could not long impose their will upon 
the thousands of incoming settlers. Nevertheless, the 
leaders were determined to keep the power in the hands of 
men who sympathized with the main object for which the 
colony was founded, namely, the establishment of a dis- 
tinctly Puritan commonwealth. Though a considerable 
number of new freemen were soon admitted, it was 
agreed that no one should henceforth receive this privi- 
lege and become a fully qualified voter unless he were a 
member of some church in the colony. No congregation 
was, of course, approved unless it conformed to the ortho- 
dox Puritan standards in theology, manner of worship, 
and church government. 

Even the church-membership qualification was not sufii- 
cient from the point of view of the ruling group. For the 
first four years, the governor and the assistants kept the 
powers almost entirely in their own hands, sometimes even 
such important matters as the election of the governor and 
the levying of taxes. This course, however, provoked great 
discontent and, in 1634, Winthrop and his associates were 
compelled to accept a representative system, by which the 
freemen in each town, instead of coming up in person to 
meetings of the General Court, should send their deputies. 
This was quite as much at variance with the charter as 
the arbitrary methods of the governor and assistants; but 



THE BIBLE COMMONWEALTH 10$ 

it was obviously impossible for all the freemen to transact 
business in a general meeting. 

The establishment of the representative system by no Assistants 
means ended the conflict between the little group of leaders ^^^ deputies. 
and those who wished a wider distribution of political power. 
When the General Court met, with the governor, the assist- 
ants, and the deputies sitting together, the governor and as- 
sistants frequently took one side and a majority of the dep- 
uties ranged themselves in opposition. In such cases, the 
assistants were likely to be outvoted by the deputies, who 
were much more numerous. The assistants now claimed 
that no measure could be passed without a majority for 
it in each group. This claim, which meant that the assist- 
ants could veto any action desired by the deputies, was 
strenuously resisted; but the assistants finally had their 
way and the Massachusetts legislature thus developed The bi- 
into a two-house system. The victory of the assistants system, 
was made possible in part by the attitude of influential 
ministers, like Cotton, who felt that the smaller group 
of leaders could be better trusted to carry through the 
ideal of a Bible Commonwealth; some of the ministers 
even talked of allowing colonial officers to serve for life. 
In short, this early Massachusetts government, though 
practically republican in the sense that final autliority rested 
witli the qualified voters, was not democratic. The church 
members, who alone could vote, were only a small minority, 
and even within this minority a still smaller group generally 
controlled the policies of the colony. 

The Bible Commonwealth idea influenced the system Puritanism 
of law as well as the form of government. Though the common 
charter required that colonial laws should conform as nearly ^^• 
as practicable to those of England, yet in the actual admin- 
istration of justice, common-law precedents were frequently 
set aside in favor of principles derived from the Old Tes- 
tament, especially from tlie Mosaic code. This led to much 



io6 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



The Body 
of Liberties. 



Local 
government. 



The town 
meeting. 



uncertainty about the law to be applied in any given case; 
and seemed to give the magistrates too much discretion. 
So there came a demand for a definite code of laws in order 
that the individual might know what his rights and duties 
were. For a time the leaders objected to such a code, but 
they finally gave way and in 1641 the so-called Body of 
Liberties was adopted. This code, though based in part 
on the common law, shows at many points an effort to follow 
Biblical precedents. Some of its provisions now seem harsh 
and narrow; but others show a distinct advance in lib- 
erality and humanity over the theory and practice of the 
old country. 

The local government of Massachusetts also varied con- 
siderably from the English practice. This was less true of 
the county government, which followed roughly the old EngUsh 
model with its justices of the peace and its sheriff. In 
the matter of town government, however, we find that the 
New Englanders took a more independent course. This 
was partly because of economic conditions, which led to 
compact settlements and emphasized the need of coopera- 
tion; but religion also had an important influence, since 
the prevailing congregational system of church organization 
tended to strengthen the spirit of local seK-government. 
The organization of town governments was simple; some 
features of the English parish were retained and the most 
vital institution was the town meeting, composed of all 
the qualified voters. Here all important business was trans- 
acted, including the choice of the selectmen, who formed a 
kind of executive committee. The town was responsible for 
preserving order witliin its limits, and for the care of its own 
poor; it could also adopt by-laws regulating other local 
affairs and vote the taxes necessary for their various pur- 
poses. The vigor and self-reliance of the New England towns 
has rightly been emphasized; but they were not completely 
independent. Their by-laws had to be approved by the 



CHURCH AND STATE IN MASSACHUSETTS 1 07 

county justices, and they were subject to the higher au- 
thority of the General Court. For failure to perform duties 
assigned to them by law, the towns could be and actually 
were punished by fine or otherwise. On the other hand, it 
was the town which elected representatives to the General 
Court or assembly; it was also the unit for purposes of 
taxation, each town being assigned its quota of the colony 
tax which it was expected to collect from the inhabitants. 

From the point of view of the thoroughgoing Puritans, Organization 
tlie chief object of all their institutions was to establish church, 
what they believed to be the true Christian faith and worship. 
Though tlie early leaders, both clergy and laymen, generally 
regarded themselves as members of the Anglican Church 
and at the time of their emigration professed a real affec- 
tion for it in spite of its "corruptions," they took a much 
more radical stand on their arrival in New England. They 
refused to permit the use of the English prayer book and, 
with some help from their neighbors at Plymouth, they 
organized their churches on the congregational basis. The 
plan of church government which was gradually developed 
under the leadership of John Cotton was a compromise 
between the two systems now known as Congregational 
and Presbyterian. Theoretically each congregation was 
a self-governing unit, choosing its own ministers. Actually, 
however, the local church was not always free from inter- 
ference; the minister and elders also had more power than 
was quite consistent with the strictly congregational theory. 
This new organization gave the Puritans a free hand to 
carry out their ideas of a severely simple service, with 
preaching as its principal feature. 

This system of faith and worship having been set up Union of 
in the church, it was considered the duty of the state to state! ^ '^"^ 
support it. Consequently the inhabitants, whether church 
members or not, were taxed to support Puritan ministers 
and required to attend their services. Other religious duties 



io8 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



The place 
of the church 
in the 
community. 



Education. 



were enforced by law, including tlie strictest kind of Sabbath 
observance. Heretics were not only dismissed from the 
church but banished from the colony. In this close as- 
sociation of church and state, the New Englanders were, 
like the Virginians, following Old World precedents. 
Nevertheless, Massachusetts apphed the principle in a 
more thorough fashion than Virgmia, because religious 
motives had played a larger part in the Puritan migra- 
tion. The clergy also had greater influence in New England 
than in any other English colony. They were generally 
men of superior education, whose advice was frequently 
asked for in secular as well as in religious matters. Under 
the influence of such leaders, public opinion was accustomed 
to the idea that the community should act together in re- 
ligion as well as in other respects. Only a very independent 
or stubborn individual could hold out against this social 
pressure. 

The conditions of life on the edge of the wilderness helped 
to emphasize the place of religion in the community. To-day 
the church as an educational and social agency has many 
competitors — newspapers, periodicals, places of public 
amusement, and an infinite variety of social organizations. 
Practically none of these things existed in the early years 
of the Massachusetts colony. The church was the central 
institution in each town for intellectual stimulus and social 
intercourse, as well as for reUgious worship. Such a system, 
intensified for many by the hardships and dangers which 
surrounded them, worked both for good and for evil. In 
the best men and women, it developed a strong spirit of 
idealism, a high sense of public and private duty; even 
such people, however, did not escape a common tendency 
toward intolerance and morbid types of religious feeling. 

For the perpetuation of its ideals, every community 
must depend largely upon its schools. In this work church 
and state were both deeply interested, and provision for 



EDUCATIO!^ IN MASSACHUSETTS 109 

public education was made almost immediately. A college 
was established in 1636 by vote of the General Court, prin- 
cipally for the purpose of training ministers to continue the Harvard 
work of those who had been educated in the English uni- ^°^'^s^- 
versities. Shortly afterwards, John Harvard, a young minis- 
ter, died, leaving a considerable gift to the college, which 
was thenceforth called by his name. Before long it began 
to turn out influential leaders of the community, in civil 
life as well as in the church. During tlie same decade, eie- Elementary 
mentary schools were established in various places. The ^^^°°'^- 
towns commonly helped to support them by grants of land 
and otherwise; but the meager salary of the schoolmaster 
had to be supplemented by fees from the parents of his pupils. 
His status was often quite modest; in one case he was obliged 
to combine his school duties with the care of the town herd. 
In 1649, the colony tried to establish a general system of 
education by requiring ever}'- town of fifty householders 
to support an elementary school; a town with one hundred 
householders was to maintain a grammar school where boys 
could be prepared for college. A town which failed to ob- 
serve this law was subject to a fine. Undoubtedl}^ the act 
was not fully enforced, but it does at least express the ideals 
of the colony. 

In almost every phase of this early Ma,ssachusetts his- Practical 
tory, the dominant note was "self-determination." The o" the'homef 
Puritan colonists were Englishmen with a real attachment government. 
to certain English ideas of civil liberty; but they had their 
special point of view and they were determined to .solve 
their own problems in their own way, whether those problems 
related to commerce, politics, religion, or education. This 
independent position was, however, seriously threatened 
almost from the beginning. As early as 1634, when the Puri- 
tan migration had become so large as to cause anxiety 
in England, Charles I appointed a commission consisting 
of Archbishop Laud and other important dignitaries, giving 



no 



NEW ENGLAND PIONEERS 



Dissent. 



them a general authority over the colonies in America. 
Gorges, also, kept up a constant fire of hostile criticism. 
Finally the English government sent over an order for the 
surrender of the charter. This was an anxious time; the 
ministers were consulted and favored resisting any "general 
governor" who might be sent from England. Fortunately 
the troubles at home became so serious that the King and 
his advisers had little time for American affairs. So for 
haK a century this Puritan experiment in government was 
carried on with very little interference. 

The enemies of this Bible Commonwealth were not 
all on the opposite side of the water. The dissenting 
spirit which brought the Puritans to Massachusetts could 
not be kept within the limits set by a small ruling class. 
Almost immediately there appeared individuals and groups 
of people who carried their dissent farther still, so far in 
fact that they in turn became exiles and founders of new 
colonies in which they were able to develop more freely their 
own theories. 



General 
accounts. 



Puritanism 
in the Old 
World, 



The 
Pilgrims. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, C. M., Fathers of New England, chs. I, II, IV. 
Channing, United States, I, chs. X-XII. Eggleston, Beginners oj 
a Nation, bk. II. Fiske, J., Beginnings of Neiv England, 50-114. 
Adams, J. T., Founding of New England, chs. I- VII. Palfrey, 
J. G., History of New England (too detailed for most readers). 

Cheyney, E. P., European Background, ch. XII. Cambridge 
Modern History, II, 342-376. Walker, W., Calvin, especially 
chs. XIV, XV. Gardiner, S. R., Puritan Revolution, 1-6, chs. 
IV, V. (His History of England, 1603-1642, is useful for refer- 
ence; see especially I, 16-41.) Becker, C., Beginnings of the 
American People, 80-100 (suggestive). 

Winsor, America, III, ch. VIII. Dexter, M., Story of the Pil- 
grims. Dexter, H. M., and M., England and Holland of the Pil- 
grims. Brown, J., Pilgrim Fathers (sympathetic English account). 
Usher, R. G., The Pilgrims and Their History. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES m 

Bradford, W., Plymouth Plantation (various editions). Ar- Sources. 
ber, E., Story of the Pilgrim Fathers. Masefield, J., Chronicles of 
the Pilgrim Fathers {Everyman Library). Hart, Contemporaries, 

I, nos. 97-103. Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 5 (Mayflower 
Compact) . 

Adams, C. F., Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, I. Massachu- 
Ellis, G. E., Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts Bay, chs. I-VII. ^^^^^ ^^' 
Winsor, J., Memorial History of Boston, I, Colonial Period, chs. I, 

II, XVI, XVIII. TwitcheU, J. H., John Winthrop. 

Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 105-110. Macdonald, Select Massachu- 
Charters, nos. 8, 17. Winthrop, J., History of New England ^^"^ ^"'''^^ 
(editions by Savage and Hosmer). Winthrop, R. C, Life and 
Letters of John Winthrop. Winthrop's "Little Speech" in History 
(Hosmer edition), II, 237-239; in Life and Letters, II, 339-342; 
and in Old South Leaflets, no. 66. Johnson, W onder-W orking 
Providence (edited by J. F. Jameson). 

Weeden, W. B., History of New England, I, especially chs. Economic 
I-V. Brigham, A. P., Geographic Influences in American History, ^^'^^°^^- 
ch. II. 

Osgood, American Colonies, I, pt. II, especially chs. I-III. Political 
Adams, C. F., and others, "Genesis of the New England Town" institutions. 
(Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, 1892). 

Walker, G. L., Some Aspects of the Religious Life of Nav Eng- Religion and 
land, ch. I. Walker, W., Congregational Churches, chs. I-IV, VII, 
Earle, A. M., Sabbath in Puritan New England and her Margaret 
Winthrop. Hutchinson, T., History of Massachusetts, I, ch. IV. 
Wright, T. G., Literary Culture in Colonial New England. 



CHAPTER VI 
THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635 TO 1676 

Roger The religious controversies which embittered the early 

vvi ams. iiistory of Massachusetts have perhaps had more attention 
than they deserve. Most of the issues then debated have 
lost interest except for specialists, and few of the men who 
fought over them can claim any conspicuous place in his- 
tory. One notable exception to this statement is Roger 
Williams, who illustrates admirably the spirit of thorough- 
going individualism in early American life. Though on the 
whole kindly and generous, he was not easy to get on with. 
He had not been long in Massachusetts before he began to 
promulgate certain ideas which disturbed the colonial 
authorities. Some of these views were of a kind to make 
trouble for the colony with the English government, as, 
for instance, when he denied the right of the King to give 
legal titels to Indian lands; or when, taking the extreme 
Separatist position, he insisted that the Church of England 
was so corrupt that every good Christian ought to repent 
of ever having been a member of it. When the Boston church 
refused to accept this latter theory Williams refused to 
associate himself with it. The Puritans generally disliked 
the use of the cross as a religious symbol; but when one 
of their leaders, apparently under Williams's influence, 
cut this emblem out of the royal ensign they felt that tliis 
was going too far. There were plenty of enemies in England 
who would be only too glad to make capital out of such oc- 
currences. 

From a modern standpoint, WUliams was putting too much 



ROGER WILLIAMS 



113 



energy into small disputes but he did identify himself with one 
really big issue. Thougli himself a man of intense and often 
narrow convictions, he made up his mind that rehgious errors 
must be fought exclusively with spiritual or intellectual 
weapons. The use of governmental authority to enforce 
a man's religious obligations he condemned as contrary 
both to reason and to Christian teaching. The magistrate, 
he said, or in modern language the state, had a right to pun- 
ish men's offenses against each other, but duties toward 
God must be left to the individual conscience. Unfortunately, 
the real importance of this issue was clouded by applying 
it to a matter in which practical considerations even now 
seem to most men more important than tlieory. He in- 
sisted, among otlier things, that the state had no right to 
require an oath because it was essentially a religious act. 
Whatever may be thought about this particular detail, 
the fact remains that Williams had started an irrepressi- 
ble conflict. If he was right in saying that the state had 
nothing to do with religion, then the whole Massachu- 
setts idea of a Bible Commonwealth was wrong. It is 
hardly strange, then, that the Massachusetts authorities took 
up the gauntlet which Williams had thrown down. In 1635 
the General Court ordered his expulsion, and in the fol- 
lowing winter he left Massachusetts to begin a nevv^ settlement 
at the head of Narragansett Bay. 

WiUiams was hardly disposed of before another eccle- 
siastical storm came up, and this time the leading figure 
was a woman, Anne Hutchinson. In his journal for 1636 
John Winthrop makes the following entry: ''One Mrs. 
Hutchinson, a woman of a ready wit and a bold spirit, 
brought over with her two dangerous errors. . . . From these 
two grew many branches." It is hardly possible and perhaps 
not important now to state exactly what Mrs. Hutchinson's 
theological opinions were. The essential fact is that she took 
an active interest in criticizmg some of the ministers, main- 



Williams's 
attack on 
the union 
of church 
and state. 



Banishment 
of Williams 



Anne 
Hutchinson. 



The Anti- 
nomians. 



114 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 



Banishment 
of the Anti- 
nomians. 



Other 
dissenters. 



taining that they laid too much stress on good works, rather 
than on divine grace. Many conservatives thought they found 
in Mrs. Hutchinson's doctrine traces of the ancient heresy 
that a truly rehgious person need pay no attention to the 
moral law. She and her associates, though probably 
guiltless of this particular offense, were therefore branded 
as Antinomians, and nearly all the ministers and church mem- 
bers were drawn into the controversy on one side or the otlier. 
Among those who, for a time at least, showed more or 
less sympathy with Mrs. Hutchinson were John Cotton and 
young Henry Vane, son of a well-known English official and 
himself destined to become one of the leaders in the Puritan 
Revolution. Vane, who had been only a few months in the 
colony, made such a deep impression that he was promptly 
chosen governor and held that olice while the Hutchinson 
controversy was at its height. In the hope of settling the 
matter, the churches of the colony held a synod, which con- 
demned a number of doctrines held, or supposed to be held, 
by the Antinomians. In the midst of this excitement there 
was an election in which the conservatives were victorious, 
and Winthrop once more became governor. Anne Hutchin- 
son was now tried before the General Court, which was much 
disturbed by her claim to have had a direct revelation from 
the Holy Spirit. Convinced that she was a dangerous char- 
acter, the Court sent her also into exile. With her went, 
under compulsion or voluntarily, many of her followers. 
The same policy of repressing dissenters was followed 
consistently during the next two decades. The teaching 
of certain Baptist doctrines was made a penal offense and 
in 1646 an attempt to induce the English Parliament, 
then dominated by the Presbyterians, to support that form 
of Puritanism in Massachusetts was promptly suppressed. 
The signers of a petition to this effect were brought into court 
and fined. The most tragic episode, however, in this whole 
period was the persecution of the Quakers. 



THE QUAKERS II5 

The Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, The Quakers, 
seemed to most men at that time almost the last word in 
religious radicalism. As against the Roman Catholics and 
many of the Anglicans, who emphasized the authority of the 
church in matters of faith, and the thoroughgoing Prot- 
estants who regarded the Bible as their ultimate authority, 
the Quakers declared that the final court of appeal was the 
individual conscience enlightened by the Holy Spirit, The 
Quakers also considered unnecessary the sacraments of the 
church, even baptism and the Lord's Supper, which were 
accepted in some form by practically all other Christians, 
To these radicals. Catholic priests and Puritan ministers 
were alike "hirelings," Instead of formal services conducted 
by a salaried clergy, they had only simple meetings of be- 
lievers, at which each man or woman spoke as the Spirit 
moved. To most men of that generation this teaching seemed 
quite anarchistic, and the violent language used by some 
of the Quaker preachers intensified this feeling. Though 
most of them meant to be and were law-abiding citizens, 
some of their doctrines and practices seemed to show lack 
of respect for constituted authority. They rejected con- 
ventional forms of courtesy like removing the hat, objected 
to oaths even in court, and refused military service. 

Almost everywhere Quakerism was regarded as a perni- Persecution 
cious infection and its adherents were severely persecuted. Quakers. 
Nowhere, however, was their treatment so drastic as in Massa- 
chusetts. When two Quaker women arrived at Boston in 1656, 
they were dealt with somewhat as modern health authori- 
ties would deal with contagious diseases. The obnoxious 
visitors were isolated and as soon as possible deported. 
During the next two years three laws were made in the hope 
of stopping this "Quaker invasion," The last and harshest 
of all provided that Quakers who persistently returned after 
being deported should be hanged. Doubtless the advocates 
of this law believed that the death penalty would never have 



Il6 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 



The 

theory of 
persecution. 



The new 

Puritan 

colonies. 



to be applied. Some of the Quakers, however, now considered 
it more than ever their duty to return in order to testify 
against the iniquity of their persecutors, and four of them, 
three men and one woman, were actuahy hanged. Such 
harshness naturally caused a reaction and the death penalty 
was given up; but that did not end the persecution. In 
1661, the General Court, having expressed its desire to be 
as "lenient" as possible, indicated the prevailing idea of 
leniency by ordering that anyone found to be a Quaker 
should be tied to a cart's tail, and whipped from town to 
town until he was out of the jurisdiction of the colony. 

It is not for the historian to defend or palliate measures 
of this kind. All he can do is to explain how they came 
about and relate them to the prevailing standards of the 
time. The Puritans believed that they were working out 
an experiment of great importance to mankind and, there- 
fore, had a right to keep tlieir particular corner of tlie world 
exclusively for those who would cooperate in this great ad- 
venture. Unquestionably the Puritans were intolerant and 
cruel; but they lived in an age when only a handful of ad- 
vanced thinkers anywhere believed that religion could safely 
be left to the individual conscience, and when even petty 
offenses were punished in the most barbarous fashion. 

So in New England, as in old England, those who could 
not find comfortable places for themselves in the existing 
social order became in tlieir turn exiles and founders of 
new commonwealths. For the most part, however, the dif- 
ferences of the Puritans among themselves were less radical 
than those which separated them all from the party of King 
Charles and Archbishop Laud. To a large extent, there- 
fore, the social and political institutions of the later New 
England colonies followed the Massachusetts model. Of 
these later Puritan colonies, there were three distinct groups. 
Those of the first group, settled at various points in and 
about Narragansett Bay, were finally combined in the col- 



THE NARRAGANSETT COLONIES II7 

ony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. About 
tlie same time the two colonies of Connecticut and New 
Haven were planted on the Connecticut River and on the 
shore of Long Island Sound. Finally, in Maine and New 
Hampshire, Puritan emigrants from Massachusetts invaded 
territory clauned by the two non-Puritan promoters, Gorges 
and Mason, becoming, in time, the dominant element in 
the population. The last of these three groups proved to be 
of minor importance in the colonial era. By 1643 the New 
Hampshire towns had been gradually absorbed by Massa- 
chusetts, and a few years later the same aggressive colony 
annexed the scattered settlements in Maine. 

The founders of the first group were mainly dissenters Narragansett 

settlements. 

from Massachusetts; it was tliese Narragansett settlements, 
therefore, which departed most radically from the Massa- 
chusetts model. Small as Rhode Island is, this little col- 
ony was formed by the union of four distinct units. The 
first was Roger Williams's own colony of Providence at Providence, 
the head of Narragansett Bay. Here, he and his associates 
bought land from the natives and presently adopted a 
"plantation covenant" agreeing to abide by the will of the 
majority, but "only in civil things." Even in secular mat- 
ters, government was reduced to its lowest terms. This 
rudimentary government had, of course, no legal authority 
which anyone either in England or America was bound to 
respect. The second and third of these political atoms 
came out of the Antinomian troubles in Massachusetts. 
A number of Anne Hutchinson's followers took refuge Portsmouth, 
on the island in Narragansett Bay then called Aquidneck, 
but better known as Rhode Island. The first settlers or- 
ganized at Portsmouth a government which, notwithstand- 
ing their difficulties in Massachusetts, was strongly Puri- 
tan in sphit. Following Biblical precedents, they called 
their elected officers, judge and elders rather than gov- 
ernor and assistants. The same vigorous individualism 



Il8 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 



Newport. 



Warwick, 



The move- 
ment toward 
union. 



which had exiled them from the "Bay" soon made trouble 
in their new home, and presently the island settlement split 
into two independent units, one at Portsmouth and the 
other at Newport, near the southern end of the island. 
The fourth of the Narragansett colonies was founded by 
an able, picturesque, and combative person by the name 
of Samuel Gorton. Gorton had strong religious convic- 
tions and expressed them after tlie fashion of his time with 
more vigor tlian tact. Having hved at one time or another 
in Massachusetts, Plymouth, and the Antinomian settlement 
at Portsmouth, he was nearly everywhere at odds with his 
neighbors; even Roger WiUiams was unwilling to have 
him as a fellow colonist. So he also sought freedom in a 
new colony on the western shore of Narragansett Bay, to 
which he later gave the name of Warwick in honor of the 
great Puritan promoter. 

With all their differences the Narragansett settlements 
had much in common. Their governments were all re- 
publican; they were all at first without legal title either 
for their lands or their governments; and they were all 
in constant fear of being absorbed by their stronger neigh- 
bors, who considered them little better than anarchists. 
Under diese circumstances they soon realized that individ- 
uahsm might easily be carried so far as to defeat its own 
objects. Unless they could bring themselves to some work- 
able compromise between liberty and union, they were hkely 
to lose their independence altogether. So the political atoms 
gradually began to unite. In 1640, the two island settlements 
were combined in what its founders called a "democrat 
or popular government." After the outbreak of the Civil 
War in England, Roger Williams went over for a confer- 
ence with the Puritan parliamentary government; and in 
1644, he secured a document authorizing the Narragansett 
settlers to organize a general government. On the strength 
of this parliamentary patent, representatives from the 



RHODE ISLAND 



119 



various towns came together in 1647 ^^'^ organized a kind 
of federal union. The new government was to be repub- 
lican; tlie president and the assistants, as well as the rep- 
resentatives of the towns in the assembly, were to be 
elected annually. So far, the political system was not un- 
like tliose of Plymouth and Massachusetts; but at two 
points the Rhode Islanders took an independent course. 
The rights of the towns were jealously guarded, and acts 
of the colonial assembly had to be submitted to a kind of 
referendum in each community. More notable still was the 
separation of church and state. No church-membership 
qualification was required for voters and every man was to 
be protected in the "peaceful and quiet enjoyment of law- 
full right and liberty," "notwithstanding our different con- 
sciences touching the truth as it is in Jesus." 

Unfortunately the new constitution did not end the 
troubles of the young colony. In 1651 the union was tem- 
porarily broken up and though it was reorganized in 1654, 
the next few years were an anxious period in Rhode Island 
history. Its territory was still claimed by neighboring 
colonies and the Restoration government of Charles II 
could hardly be expected to recognize a patent issued by 
the rebellious Long Parliament. Once more, however, the 
Rhode Islanders found a skillful agent to represent them 
in England, and in 1663 tliey secured their first royal charter. 
Under this constitution, whose legality no one could question, 
the qualified voters were enabled to carry on a practically 
republican government, closely resembling that of Mas- 
sachusetts. Though in general the laws of the colony 
had to conform to those of England, there was an exception 
in favor of religious liberty. The charter declared that 
no persons should be "any wise molested, punished, dis- 
quieted, or called in question for any differences in opinion 
in matters of religion," provided he did not disturb the 
"civil peace." Fortunately, Roger WiUiams, the hot-headed 



The Union 
of 1647. 



Rhode 
Island and 
Providence 
Plantations. 



The charter 
of 1663. 



Religious 
liberty. 



I20 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 



The found- 
ing of 
Connecticut. 



Thomas 
Hooker. 



young radical of 1635, was still living to see his prin- 
ciple of "soul liberty" incorporated in the constitutional 
law of an American commonwealth. A few years earlier, 
when the Quakers visited Riiode Island, Williams's fidelity to 
this ideal had been severely tested. No one could use stronger 
language in denunciation of the Quakers than he did; but 
when asked to co5perate witli otlier colonies m measures 
of persecution, Rliode Island under his leadership steadily 
refused. 

The foundmg of Connecticut and New Haven is quite 
another story in which religious differences were less impor- 
tant. Less than five years after the founding of Massa- 
chusetts Bay, some of its people discovered that in the 
Connecticut valley the land was more productive than any 
in the neighborhood of Boston. This region was already 
known to the Dutch, who came in from the Hudson valley 
and established their "House of Hope" near the present site 
of Hartford; there were also a few English pioneers from 
Plymouth. These facts did not, however, prevent conflicting 
plans being made in Massachusetts, where the Dutch were 
regarded as mere intruders on land properly belonging to 
the English. Besides the economic motive for emigration 
there was a certain amount of political and social discontent. 
The chief promoters of the new project were Thomas Hooker, 
minister of the church at Newtown, now Cambridge, and John 
Haynes, an influential leader who had served one term as 
governor of Massachusetts. Hooker was of course some- 
what liberal in his views and dissatisfied with the group 
of men who controlled the policies of Massachusetts; but 
he was obviously not a radical of the Roger Williams type. 
It is certainly difficult to regard Haynes as a very progressive 
person, since he was ready to criticize Winthrop for being 
too lenient. These founders of Connecticut were not exiles; 
the Massachusetts government at first refused them per- 
mission to emigrate and finally gave its consent reluctantly. 



CONNECTICUT 121 

In 1635 the emigration began in earnest and before long Connecticut 
members of three Puritan congregations near Boston had towns, 
found new homes on the Connecticut. By 1636 there 
were about 800 settlers in the three river towns of Hart- 
ford, Wethersfield, and Windsor; a few miles to the north 
was anotlier pioneer settlement at Springfield, which later 
turned out to be within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. 
These newcomers crowded out the earlier settlers from 
Plymouth, and though they did not quite venture to expel 
the Dutch, they took up land close to the "House of Hope." 
Like the first settlers of Plymouth and Rhode Island, the 
Connecticut pioneers were squatters with no legal title to 
hold land or carry on a government. At the mouth of the 
Connecticut, there was the post of Saybrook, established 
by John Winthrop, Jr., son of the Massachusetts governor, 
under a grant made by the Council for New England to 
some of its Puritan members. An understanding was, how- 
ever, reached between these rival interests, which allowed 
the colonists up the river to develop their settlements with- 
out interference. 

In 1639 representatives from the river towns met at xheFunda- 
Hartford and formed a constitution called the Fundamental orders. 
Orders. This government also followed the Massachusetts 
model, with governor, deputy governor, and assistants 
all chosen annually by tlie freemen. The differences, which 
were not very important, are interesting chiefly as showing 
a desire to prevent the officers of the colony from gaining 
too much power; the governor, for instance, was not 
allowed to serve two years in succession. Evidently the 
framers of this constitution had no fundamental objec- 
tion to the union of church and state; they declared, indeed, 
that it was one of their chief objects to preserve "the dis- 
cipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the 
said Gospel is now practised amongst us." In other words, 
the state was expected to maintain the Puritan system. The 



122 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 



Growth of 
the colony. 



New Haven. 



governor was required to be a member of some approved 
congregation, and though no general law required that voters 
should be church members, most of the towns probably 
did not admit as "freemen" and voters persons who were 
not in sympathy with the religious aims set forth in the 
constitution. Under this government tlie colony grew and 
prospered; new towns were planted along the river and east- 
ward toward Narragansett Bay. The Dutch in the Hudson 
valley were much impressed by the success of the English, 
contrasting it with the slow progress of New Netherland. 
Against possible attacks from that quarter, the Connecti- 
cut farmers depended partly on the English fort at the 
mouth of the river; but their best protection was a rapid 
growth in population with which tlie Dutch could not 
compete. 

Connecticut was hardly established before New England 
Puritanism set its stakes still farther westward on Long 
Island Sound, at New Haven. The promoters of this colony 
were well-to-do London Puritans, led by their minister, 
John Davenport, and an influential merchant named The- 
ophilus Eaton. They came to Massachusetts in 1637, 
and, being thoroughly orthodox Puritans, were urged to 
stay in Massachusetts. They had more ambitious plans, 
however, and presently moved to New Haven, which tliey 
hoped to make an important trading center. They also 
proposed to make this new colony an even more thorough- 
going Bible Commonwealth than Massachusetts. Their 
hope of commercial development on a large scale was dis- 
appointed; but during the next six years, they succeeded 
in establishing another little Puritan republic which fi- 
nally included, besides New Haven, several otlier towns, 
extending westward along the Sound almost as far as the 
present eastern boundary of New York. 

For almost twenty-five years, Connecticut and New 
Haven continued as separate colonies. Though quite agreed 



THE PEQUOT WAR 1 23 

on the fundamental tenets of Puritanism, they were not 
altogether congenial and the New Haven people prided 
themselves on the peculiar strictness of their church system. 
Both colonies were, however, at a disadvantage because 
they had no royal charter and therefore no legal security 
against outside interference. So long as the Puritan party 
kept control in England, they were fairly safe; but when 
the Stuart monarchy came back under Charles II, the Con- 
necticut people, especially, were anxious for royal recog- 
nition. Through the skillful management of John Winthrop, Union of 
Jr., who had been governor of Connecticut for several years, and^N^w"^ 
a royal charter was secured in 1662 . Connecticut and New Haven. The 

TT 11 1 • . .1, charter of 

Haven, the latter much agamst its will, were now com- 1662. 
bined in a single colony. As in Rhode Island, political 
power was placed almost completely in the hands of the quali- 
fied voters; the charter proved so satisfactory to the people 
who lived under it that they used it as their state constitu- 
tion for more tlian forty years after the Declaration of 
Independence. 

The westward movement of the New Englanders into The Pequot 
the Connecticut valley brought the first serious conflict ^'^' 
in this region between the whites and the Indians. The tribes 
most seriously disturbed by this white invasion were the Pe- 
quots, who, living in the eastern part of the present state 
of Connecticut, were hemmed in between the Narragansetts 
on the east and the Mohegans on the west. The trouble 
began with the usual misunderstandings between the races, 
followed by Indian attacks upon individual settlers, and 
finally by a real war. For a time the Connecticut frontiers- 
men were in grave danger, isolated as they were from the 
older settlements in Massachusetts; but they soon organized 
an effective defense and before long received reenforce- 
ments from Massachusetts and from the friendly Indians, 
so that they could take the offensive. By 1637 the Pequots 
were completely crushed. Unfortunately the record was 



124 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 



Results of 

Puritan 

enterprise. 



New 
England 

and the Eng 
lish Com- 
monwealth. 



The Indian 
problem. 



Stained by wholesale slaughter and enslavement of the 
Indians, including many women and children. 

Within twenty-five years after the founding of the 
Pilgrim colony at Plymouth, the Puritan colonists had pre- 
empted nearly the whole New England seaboard from the 
Maine-New Hampshire border almost to the present sub- 
urban area of the City of New York. Here for about half 
a century they were almost entirely free to carry out 
their religious, economic, and poHtical experiments. Be- 
fore this period of practical independence came to an end, 
the ideas of the Puritan founders were so thoroughly im- 
pressed on New England society that they persisted with 
surprisingly little change through all the vicissitudes of the 
next hundred years. This was in itself a great achievement, 
but it is not the whole story of Puritan enterprise, for it 
leaves out of account the aggressive Puritan minorities 
which made tlieir influence felt in the Dutch territory of 
New Netherland, in the Chesapeake colonies, and even 
in the West Indies. 

Notwithstanding this remarkable record of expansion, 
the New England horizon was not altogether unclouded. 
The growing power of the Puritans in old England checked 
immigration and there was even some backward flow to 
the mother country. This falling off in immigration checked 
also the flow of capital into the colony, and severe financial 
depression led many to talk of deserting the enterprise. 
During the English Civil War, the New Englanders naturally 
sympathized with the parliamentary party as against the 
King; but their principal desire was to be let alone and they 
could never be quite sure about the final outcome. As they 
said later, it was their policy "only to act a passive part 
throughout these late vicissitudes and successive overturn- 
ings of state." 

The Indians were another source of anuxiety. The settlers 
had generally tried to be fair, usually paying the Indians 



NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION 1 25 

for their land and trying to settle justly the inevitable dis- 
putes between individuals of the two races. Some progress 
was also made in missionary work, especially by the 
Massachusetts minister, John Eliot. Yet there were 
also many acts of injustice, some quite inexcusable but 
others due to the fact that neither race could quite under- 
stand the other. So the danger of Indian uprisings could 
never be forgotten and even the short Pequot War showed 
Ijow hard it was to get the scattered colonies to act to- 
gether when a crisis did arise. There were white neighbors, French 
too, who were not friendly. Along the Mame coast, New neighbor? 
Englanders competed with Frenchmen for the Indian trade; 
and in 1643 the Massachusetts authorities were more or 
or less involved in a conflict between two rival French leaders 
in Acadia. The Dutch in New Netherland did not enjoy 
the westward expansion of New England, which was steadily 
going forward with little regard for their feelings. These 
conflicting claims might well lead to war. Doubtless some 
New Englanders could remember the massacre of Amboina 
in the Spice Islands of the East Indies, which showed that 
the Dutch could sometimes strike hard and ruthlessly in 
defending their commercial interests against English competi- 
tion. Even within the Puritan circle, everything did not go 
quite smoothly. Massachusetts quarreled with Plymouth 
about boundaries and Indian trade, while the radicals of 
Narragansett Bay were disliked by nearly all their neighbors. 
All these difi&culties emphasized the need of cooperation. 
On the whole, too, the interests which divided the New 
Englanders were less fundamental than those which drew New Eng 
them together. They had a common inheritance of language federation. 
and of law; they had all worked out practically repub- 
lican forms of government; and most of them agreed on the 
fundamental Puritan ideas of religion and church govern- 
ment. The idea of forming a federation first came up in 
1637, the year of the Pequot War, and was discussed at 



126 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 

intervals for the next sLx years. At last, the leaders were 
ready to act and in 1643 they organized the United Colonies 
of New England with four members: Massachusetts, 
Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. The unpopular 
radicals of Narragansett Bay were left out and also the 
struggling Maine villages, soon to be absorbed by Massa- 
chusetts. In the articles of union stress was laid on the 
common religious interests which the new federation was 
to promote; but the spirit of independence was scarcely 
less strong and the federation was, therefore, organized 
on a "state rights" basis. The management of its business 
was entrusted to eight commissioners, the little colonies 
of Plymouth and New Haven receiving exactly the same 
representation as Massachusetts, which had a larger pop- 
ulation than all the others combined. Each colony was 
also guaranteed complete independence except for the very 
few matters entrusted to the confederation, which was 
organized primarily for military defense. Among other 
matters provided for in the articles were the extradition 
of criminals and of fugitive servants and a plan for the settle- 
ment of intercolonial disputes. 

Working The confederation had a short and troubled career. 

?^*^^,5*^"' Usually the commissioners were content to make recom- 

federatioa. -^ , 

mendations to the various colonial governments. They 
recommended, for instance, legislation requiring each man 
to keep himself supplied with arms; also that the judi- 
cial proceedings of one colony should receive fuU recogni- 
tion by all the others, thus anticipating a familiar clause 
in the present Constitution of the United States. From time 
to time they discussed Indian affairs, deciding on one occa- 
sion that the Mohegan chieftain, Uncas, might lawfully 
put to death a captive Narragansett chief. The Dutch 
furnished another series of problems. In 1643, John Win- 
throp, the first president of the confederation, was mstructed 
to demand satisfaction for damage done to English traders 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS 1 27 

in the Delaware valley by the Dutch and the Swedes. Ten 
years later, however, when Connecticut and New Haven were 
eager'for war against the Dutch, Massachusetts, which would 
have had to make the heaviest contribution in men and 
money, strongly opposed the proposition and when out- 
voted refused to cooperate. This was not the first case 
of this kind. A few years before, after it was regularly 
decided that Connecticut had the right to levy a tax on 
goods coming down the river from Massachusetts, that gov- 
ernment held out against it and voted a retaliatory tax against 
the other members of the union. There was a still more 
serious breach of the constitution when, in 1662, New Haven 
was annexed to Connecticut notwithstanding a clause in the 
articles guaranteeing the independence of every member of 
the league. 

The confederation had now about outlived its usefulness, 
though in 1675 it helped to put down the formidable Indian 
uprising known as King Philip's War. Compared with 
modern federal governments, the New England confederation 
was a feeble affair; nevertheless it may fairly claim an 
honorable place in the series of American experunents out of 
which has come the most successful federation in history. 

The "golden age" of New England Puritanism ended 
with the passing of the first generation of colonists. By 
1660 Winthrop and Cotton, the most trusted leaders in the 
state and in the church, and many of their associates were 
gone; their places were now taken by younger and usually 
smaller men. It was also becoming more difficult for 
the New Englanders to keep their independent position. 
The fall of the Commonwealth in England and the restor- New Eng- 

. , , „ , , T^ • . , ^ 'and and the 

ation of the Stuarts meant that the British government was home gov- 
passing into the hands of men who were not at all friendly ^'■^"^^"t' 
to the Puritan communities across the sea. This dislike was 
increased when some of the "regicides," who were respon- 
sible for the execution of Charles I, found refuge in New 



128 THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTHS, 1635-1676 

England. The Massachusetts authorities tried to ward off 
the danger by sending over extremely polite, not to say 
effusive, letters protesting their loyalty to the King but 
quite iirmly insisting on their right to manage their own 
affairs. When the King demanded that property holders 
should be allowed to vote, whether they were church members 
or not, the Massachusetts General Court complied formally 
with this requirement, but practically left the matter much 
as it was before. In 1664, when the EngHsh government sent 
over commissioners to investigate, the Massachusetts people, 
particularly, obstructed their proceedings as much as they 
could. These incidents convinced tlie English officials 
that the aims of Massachusetts were quite inconsistent 
with its obligations to the home government. The friction 
became more serious when Parliament passed a series of 
acts regulating colonial trade, only to find that the elected 
governors of New England could not be trusted to enforce 
them. For a time, Massachusetts was able to prevent 
effective intervention, but the authorities at home 
were getting more and more exasperated. Before many 
years the colony vv^as forcibly reminded that it was still 
a part of the English dominions and must adjust its theories 
and practices to that fact. 
^,'^? , WhUe these clouds were gathering on the political ho- 

War. rizon, the New Englanders had to pass through the most 

serious of all their Indian troubles. "King Philip's War" 
was a natural result of the steady pressure of colonial pop- 
ulation upon the Indian country. There was constant fric- 
tion and the Indians were often unjustly treated. In 1675 
the rising discontent of ttie savages found a leader in "King 
Philip," the son of a chief, Massasoit, who had long 
kept the peace between his own people and their English 
neighbors. The serious fighting lasted untU the summer 
of 1676, when King Philip was killed. The final victory of 
the English was mevitable, but before it came the war had 



KING PHILIP'S WAR 1 29 

taken a fearful toll in life and property. At one time or an- 
other nearly half the settled towns were attacked and 
seriously injured; several were totally destroyed. It was 
a tragic experience whose depressing influence was felt for 
many years. For the student of history, however, the war 
is important chiefly because it was the last serious chal- 
lenge ofl'ered by the Indians to the white occupation of 
New England. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, Fathers oj New England, chs. Ill, V-VIII. Becker, General 
Beginnings of the American People, 100-124. Channing, United ^'^^°^^ ' 
5/0^,1,356-437,485-495; 11,65-79. Eggleston, Beginners of 
a Nation, bk. Ill, chs. II, III. Adams, Founding of New Eng- 
land, chs. VIII-XIV. 

Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 14, 16, 18, 19, 24, 27. Hart, Collected 
Contemporaries, I, nos. 108, 112; chs. XVII-XXI. sources. 

Ellis, G. E., Puritan Age in Massachusetts, chs. VIII-XII. Massachu- 
Adams, B., Emancipation of Massachusetts, chs. II-V. Adams, f^'^'^^^jf^ 
C. F., Massachusetts, Its Historians and Its History, 1-64, and senters. 
his Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, I, 362-532; II, 
S33~578- (The Adamses are sharply critical of the Puritans.) 
Jones, R. M., Quakers in the American Colonies, I, chs. I-V. 

Straus, O. S., Roger Williams (sympathetic); Dexter, H. IvI., Roger Wil- 
As to Roger Williams (critical). Seccombe, T., "Roger Williams" Rhode 
in Dictionary of National Biography. Writings of Williams in Island. 
Narragansett Club, Publications. Richman, I. B., Rhode Island 
(Commonwealth Series), pt. I, and his Rhode Island, Its Making 
and Meaning. 

Andrews, C. M., River Towns of Connecticut (Johns Hopkins Connecticut. 
Studies, VII). Walker, G. L., Thomas Hooker. 

Osgood, American Colonies, I, pt. II, ch. X. Articles in Mac- New Eng- 

donald. Select Charters, no. 19; also in Hart and Channing, Ameri- federation. 

can History Leaflets, no. 7. 

Lincoln, C. H., Narratives of the Indian Wars, 7-167. King Philip's 

War. 



CHAPTER VII 
EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 

The English The first half century of English colonization closed 

CO onies in ^^.^^ three groups of settlements securely established in the 
New World. Farthest south were the island planta- 
tions of the West Indies, — Barbados, the Leeward Islands, 
and, by conquest just at the end of this period, the Spanish 
colony of Jamaica. Next came the tobacco-planting colo- 
nies of Chesapeake Bay; and, finally, with another long 
interval, the self-governing Puritan commonwealths of 
New England. Leaving Jamaica out of account for a mo- 
ment, all these colonies had certain common character- 
istics. All were the result of real colonization, the taking 
up of land not previously occupied by Europeans. In the 
island colonies and to a slight extent on Chesapeake Bay, 
negro slaves had been brought in; otherwise the popula- 
tion was almost exclusively English. In the two southern 
groups, except for a short time during the English Puritan 
Revolution, established institutions and prevailing ideals 
followed closely those of the mother country. In each of 
these little dependent states, there was a governor rep- 
resenting the monarchical principle but also an assembly 
claiming the privileges of the English House of Commons. 
Justices of the peace and vestrymen regulated the affairs of 
lesser people much as they did in England. These people were 
also, for the most part, content with the religious system 
to which they had been accustomed in the old home. Except 
in Maryland, they believed that God Almighty should be 
"devoutly and duly served", in the orthodox Anglican 

130 



THE RESTORATION ERA I3I 

manner. With the New Englanders, it was somewhat dif- 
ferent. They, too, were Englishmen and clung to many 
Ol the old English ways; they also had their representative 
assemblies, their justices and constables, and their estab- 
lished churches which everybody had to support. They were 
EngUshmen, however, of a special kind with some ideas op- 
posed to those which finally prevailed at home. Left much 
more to themselves than the southern colonies, they became 
practically republican, and they preferred to serve God in 
a different fashion from that approved by EngUsh law 
and custom. 

The second half century of the colonial era has a different New 
story to tell. There were still settlements on virgin soil, colonTzaUon. 
but much of the newly occupied territory was taken by con- 
quest from European rivals. EngUshmen continued to cross 
the ocean, but in nearly all the new provinces they were 
soon living side by side with men of other nationalities; 
into the south the African negroes came in ever increasing 
numbers. Foreign elements and political experimentation 
brought new variations from the EngUsh standard; the forces 
which were finally to create a new and different national 
type were already at work. 

The background for all tliese new phases of colonial The era 
expansion is the period known in English history as the Restoration. 
Restoration. Strictly speaking, it begins with the accession 
of Charles II, but some of its most characteristic tendencies 
may be seen in the days of Oliver Cromwell. The Restora- 
tion era has not had a particularly good name with Ameri- 
can readers of EngUsh history. It means to them, for one 
thing, the breakdown of the great English experiment 
in republican government and the return of a Stuart king 
who went as far as he dared in the direction of absolute 
monarchy. It was also a period of intolerance in re- 
ligious matters. Even moderate Puritan ministers were 
excluded from the national church, and dissenters, as well 



132 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Constructive 
forces. 



Commerce 
and sea 
power. 



as Catholics, were persecuted in various ways. Even more 
familiar is the sharp reaction from Puritan morality, 
in which the court of Charles II undoubtedly set the worst 
possible example. Not the least discreditable feature of 
the King's policy was his willingness at times to sacrifice 
the national interest in order to secure political and finan- 
cial support from the French King. 

Notwithstanding these facts, the Restoration was not, 
on the whole, a period of decadence; it was rather one of 
unusual national vigor. Even the decline in religion and 
morals has been exaggerated. There were dissolute princes 
and courtiers; but the number of new churches built after 
the great London fire of 1666 indicates that reUgion was 
not dead even in the Church of England. Among the dis- 
senters were such great leaders as John Bunyan, George Fox, 
and William Penn. Natural science made great gams, 
and the new Royal Society helped to stimulate interest in 
that branch of knowledge. There were great names also 
in philosophy and political theory — Thomas Hobbes, Al- 
gernon Sidney, and John Locke. One subject in which think- 
ers and business men were almost equally interested was 
economics, more particularly the problem of developing 
British trade and making it contribute more effectively to 
the national wealth. 

Interest in commercial expansion was not a new thing; 
but it was greatly stimulated after the Civil War. One of 
tlie most important elements on the side of Parliament as 
against the King, was the merchant class, which, after 
the defeat of the royalists, had a good chance to secure 
friendly legislation. The merchants were fortunate also 
in getting the support of Cromwell; and his vigorous ad- 
ministration did much to restore British prestige abroad. 
He was keenly interested in the navy, in the merchant marine, 
and in the expansion of English trade throughout the world. 
In all these matters the Restoration made less difi'erence 



CROMWELL'S AMERICAN POLICY 133 

than might have been expected. Many of the merchants 
and officials who furnished expert advice to Cromwell were 
equally ready to cooperate with the King, and they con- 
tinued to exert a strong influence upon the commercial 
policy of the government. Much is commonly said about 
the humiliating reverses of the royal navy at the hands 
of the Dutch; but the Restoration period as a whole shows 
a great development of the navy, and the merchant marine 
was doubled between 1660 and 1688. 

Closely connected with this enthusiasm for commercial Colonial 

, . .... . expansion. 

expansion was a renewed mterest m colonization as one of 
the best means of promoting trade. This revival also had 
its beginning under the Puritan Commonwealth, when 
England competed vigorously with other European states 
for trade and colonial empire. During the short five-year 
period of Cromwell's protectorate, expeditions were organ- 
ized against the Dutch in New Netherland, tlie French in 
Acadia, and the Spaniards in the West Indies. The first 
was still hanging fire when the home government decided 
to make peace with the Dutch; the second was successful 
and Acadia became for a few years the British province 
of Nova Scotia; the attack on the Spanish colonies was 
not wholly successful, but Jamaica was conquered and this 
rich sugar-planting island became a permanent part of the 
British Empire. 

After the Restoration, many factors contributed to keep Personal 
alive the interest in colonial expansion. Charles II himself, ihe^stuart 
though self-indulgent and unprincipled, was an able man family. 
and really anxious to promote the economic welfare of his Charles il. 
country — partly no doubt because increasing wealth for the 
nation meant more money for the royal treasury. He was 
interested in colonies because of the profits they might 
bring to himself and his friends, as well as to the nation 
at large. So, ignoring his previous promise to the Spaniards, 
he decided to keep Jamaica and when shortly afterwards 



134 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



James, 
Duke of 
York. 



Politicians, 
courtiers, 
and mer- 
chants. 



he married a Portuguese princess he secured as a part of her 
dowry the African post of Tangier and the city and 
island of Bombay, in India, one of the nuclei about which 
the British Indian Empire has since developed. Charles 
was also directly concerned in other overseas enterprises, 
including the African slave trade. Other members of the 
royal family had similar interests. The King's uncle, Prince 
Rupert, also invested in the slave trade and took a leading 
part in the formation of the Hudson's Bay Company, one 
of the most powerful and picturesque trading monopolies 
ever established in the New World. Of all the members 
of the royal famUy, the most significant for American colo- 
nial history was the King's brother James, Duke of York, 
afterwards King James 11. As Lord High Admiral, he had a 
substantial part in the development of the navy, though 
he owed much to expert advisers like the famous diarist, 
Samuel Pepys. He is chiefly remembered as the founder 
of the English province of New York; but he also in- 
cluded among his numerous ventures the African slave 
trade, the Hudson Bay fur trade, and the East India 
Company. 

Several of the King's ministers were also seriously con- 
cerned with American affairs; the Puritan general. Monk, 
who as a reward for bringing the army over to the King's 
side was made Duke of Albemarle and Master of the King's 
Horse; Lord Ashley, later Earl of Shaftesbury, who began 
his career as a Puritan politician; and Edward Hyde, Earl 
of Clarendon, the King's chief adviser during his exile and 
in the early years of his reign. All three of these men became 
proprietors of the new province of Carolina. Both Clarendon 
and Ashley were strongly convinced of the importance 
of colonies as sources of national wealth and did what they 
could to impress these views upon the King. About these 
larger figures gathered many lesser personages — soldiers, 
courtiers, and adventurers — who saw in tlie New World 



RESTORATION POLICIES 135 

an opportunity to mend broken fortunes or build new ones. 
Finally, in close touch with some of the politicians and court- 
iers, were the merchants who were engaged in the American 
trade and had ideas about the best means of making tlie 
plantations useful to the mother country. 

The kind of colonization desired by these politicians Colonial 
and "big business men" was something quite different from o^'^hT 
the self-sufhcient commonwealths of New England. They Restoration, 
wanted rather plantations for the production of articles 
which would otherwise have to be bought from England's 
rivals. Since they regarded colonies primarily as a means 
of developing trade, they were generally not much interested 
in sending out large numbers of emigrants from England. 
Economists no longer talked about dispos^g of surplus 
population; on the contrary they encouraged the immigra- 
tion of Protestant refugees from the Continent as a means 
of increasing the national wealth. Under these circumstances, The slave 
die African slave trade was naturally favored since it furnished 
labor to the plantations without drawing man power 
from home industries. Accordingly organizations were formed 
for this purpose, of which the most important was the Royal 
African Company of 1672. Encouraged by the home govern- 
ment and by the increasing demand for labor in the planta- 
tions, there was soon a great increase in the importation of 
negroes into the southern and insular colonies. 

Though the government was not anxious to encourage The new 
large-scale emigration, it did nevertheless give many people 
good reasons for leaving home. The continued harsh treat- 
ment of dissenters sent thousands of Quakers and other re- 
ligious radicals to the older American settlements and to 
the new Quaker colonies of West Jersey and Pennsylvania. 
The Quaker colonists included a considerable number from 
Ireland and Wales, as well as from England; the government 
itself encouraged the sending of servants from Scotland and 
Ireland. Besides these emigrants and the Protestant refugees 



colonists. 



136 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



The new 

proprietary 

provinces. 



Carolina. 



The charters 
of 1663 
and 1663. 



from Europe, some desirable material for the new settle- 
ments was drawn from tlie older colonies of New England, 
Virginia, and Barbados. 

The two main results of the new expansionist policy were 
the founding of Carolina, which pushed the EngUsh fron- 
tier farther to the southward, and the conquest of the Hud- 
son and Delaware valleys, which filled in the great gap 
between the Chesapeake colonies and New England. In this 
forward movement, the government still depended mainly 
on private initiative. The new colonies of the Restoration 
period all began as proprietary provinces not under the 
direct control of the Crown. 

The territory of Carolina had long been clauned by the 
English and much of it had been included in earlier charters. 
The first Virginia charter had implied an English claim 
to the whole South Atlantic coast as far as the thirty- 
fourth parallel; and the second Virginia charter put the 
southern boundary two hundred miles south of Old Point 
Comfort, far enough to include a large part of what is now 
North Carolina. In 1630, after this charter was revoked, 
Charles I went still farther in his disregard of Spanish claims 
by giving to his attorney-general. Sir Robert Heath, the 
territory between the thirty-sLxth and thirty-first parallels, 
thus cutting off a slice of southern Virginia, and at the other 
end claiming the coast line as far south as the present 
boundary of Florida. Efforts to settle this region having 
proved unsuccessful. Heath's charter was forfeited, and 
in 1663 this region was given to a group of eight proprietors. 
Three of these grantees were the great ministers of state 
already mentioned. Clarendon, Ashley, and Albemarle. 
Then came three Cavaliers, Lord Craven, Sir George Car- 
teret, and Lord Berkeley, loyal followers of the King in the 
dark days of his exile, who now claimed their reward. 
Lastly, there were two men of long experience in colonial 
affairs, Governor Berkeley of Virginia and Sir John Colleton, 



CAROLINA CHARTER 137 

a prominent planter of Barbados, whose influence with Ash- 
ley probably had much to do with the starting of this enter- 
prise. The territory given in the first charter was the same 
as that granted to Heath; but a few "squatters" from 
Virginia had already settled near the northern boundary 
and in 1665 that line was pushed up to 36° 30'. Witli ex- 
traordinary audacity the southern boundary was now fixed 
at 29°, that is, south of the old Spanish settlement of St. 
Augustme, a claim which neither tlie government nor the 
proprietors were able to make good. 

The authority of the proprietors in their new province Govern- 
was similar to that of Lord Baltimore in Maryland. Like provSlons. 
him, they were authorized to establish a palatinate, or feudal 
principality, almost entirely free from royal control. Both 
charters provided for large estates under the manorial system 
and for titles of nobility. Lord Baltimore had not used this 
latter privilege, but the Carolina proprietors presently es- 
tablished two orders of nobility, taking the title "Land- 
grave" from the Germans and that of "Cacique" from the 
Indians. The right of the people to share in the making of 
laws was also recognized in both charters. In the matter 
of religion, however, there was an important diiJerence. 
Though Lord Baltimore had adopted a policy of toleration, 
he had no warrant for it in his charter. The Carolina pro- 
prietors, on the contrary, were definitely authorized to toler- 
ate dissenters if they saw fit. This is remarkable because 
some of these proprietors were members of a govern- 
ment which was making life miserable for English dis- 
senters. In this case, as in the Rhode Island charter issued 
about the same time, it was explained that the colony was 
so far away that religious concessions there would not in- 
terfere witli uniformity at home. The motive is evident; 
the proprietors wished to attract settlers who could not be 
secured under an exclusive ecclesiastical system. The 
Anglican Church was, however, recognized as the official 



138 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



A planta- 
tion colony. 



Northern 
settlements. 



Frontier 
conditions in 
northern 
Carolina. 



church; complete reUgious liberty was not expected, but 
only toleration. 

What the Carolina promoters wished to do was to es- 
tablish a plantation colony, somewhat like those of the West 
Indies. They hoped it would produce tropical or semi- 
tropical articles, like silk, wine, and olive oil, which ordinarily 
came to England from the Mediterranean countries or 
the Far East. Sugar and tobacco were provided for in 
other colonies and need not be encouraged in Carolina. 
The outcome, however, v/as quite different from tliat 
expected. 

The first settlers were Virginia frontiersmen who had be- 
gun moving south even before the proprietors set up their 
government. These pioneers of North Carolina led a lonely 
existence about the shores of Albemarle Sound, where they 
were cut off from their Virginia neighbors by great stretches 
of swamp land and where the shifting sands of the coast 
made access by sea difficult except to small vessels. Left 
largely to themselves at first, they raised the tobacco to 
which they had become accustomed in Virginia, with corn 
and live stock sufficient to meet their own requirements. 
Before long, however, they were sending some provisions to 
the West Indies. Such commerce as they had with the out- 
side world was largely in small ships from New England, 
which exchanged manufactured goods of various kinds 
for tobacco and provisions. 

So there grew up in northern Carolina a community of 
self-reliant frontiersmen whom the proprietors could not 
easily control. From time to time governors were sent out 
who, with the representatives of the colonists, passed a few 
laws; but in general the proprietors paid little attention to 
this northern settlement, which from their point of view was 
an unprofitable affair. Attempts to restrain the settlers 
made trouble. In 1677, for instance, when customs officials 
tried to enforce Enghsh trade regulations, hidierto almost 



NORTHERN CAROLINA 1 39 

wholly ignored by tlie colonists and the New England trad- 
ers, the inhabitants rose in revolt and imprisoned the unpopu- 
lar ofi&cials. For about a year the rebels had complete control 
of the government. A few years later, a proprietary gov- 
ernor was arrested by the colonists and banished. For many 
years, North Carolina had a bad reputation not only with 
the home authorities but among its neighbors. It was 
supposed to be a favorite resort for undesirable characters 
from Virgmia and for the pirate ; who infested the whole 
Atlantic seaboard. The inhabitants were also said to have 
little regard for religion. Though the Church of England 
was officially recognized in the charter, no regular services 
were mamtained here for many years; almost the only 
religious teaching then available was furnished by Quaker 
preachers. Probably some contemporary criticism of these 
settlers by unsympathetic neighbors should be discounted; 
they doubtless had the characteristic virtues and vices of 
frontier people as shown in various stages of the American 
westward movement. 

While the Albemarle settlements were gradually de- Plans for 
veloping into the colony of North CaroHna, the proprietors caroiSa. 
were much more interested in the southern part of their 
province. In the development of plans for this region some 
of the Barbadian planters took an active interest. The 
growth of the large slaveholding plantations was making 
their island less attractive to small planters and white serv- 
ants, who might, therefore, be persuaded to try the new 
colony. Some of these Barbadians were promised land in 
Carolina on favorable terms. The government was also to 
be liberal, with elected assemblies and religious toleration. 
The outcome of this movement was a colony on the Cape 
Fear River, in what is now North Carolina; it seemed fairly 
prosperous for a time but later met with reverses and had to 
be abandoned. Six years after the first charter was issued, the 
proprietors had little to show for all their troubles, except 



I40 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Lord Ashley. 



The Funda- 
mental Con- 
stitutions. 



Beginnings 
of South 
Carolina. 



the unmanageable tobacco growers and cattlemen on 
Albemarle Sound. 

The proprietors were not discouraged, however, and for 
a time they had an able leader in the person of Ashley, now 
Earl of Shaftesbury. He was an active politician and, being 
more liberal in his views than Clarendon, is generally re- 
garded as one of the founders of the Wliig party. He man- 
aged also to find time for American affairs and the serious 
study of colonial problems, though some of his ideas did not 
stand the test of practical experience. Perhaps the most 
serious blunder made by the proprietors during this period 
was their attempt to substitute for the comparatively simple 
governments at first proposed an intricate scheme called the 
Fundamental Constitutions. This document carried to 
an absurd extreme the feudal system anticipated by the 
charter, with a landed aristocracy occupying a place in the 
government similar to that of the Enghsh House of Lords. 
Even in the representative house, every member had to 
have at least five hundred acres of land. The Fundamental 
Constitutions caused general dissatisfaction from the be- 
ginning. They were repeatedly amended by the proprietors 
during the next thirty years, and in the end gave way to 
a comparatively simple system not unlike the other royal 
and proprietary goverrmients. 

More important than this eccentric constitution making 
was the planting of a permanent colony in what is now South 
Carolina. For several years the proprietors had been ad- 
vertising the attractions of their province for different types 
of settlers. Younger sons of the Enghsh gentry were offered 
a chance to build up large estates, thus becoming the founders 
of a new American aristocracy. For poorer people the life 
of a servant in the colony was optimistically described. The 
proprietors also counted largely on their ability to draw 
people from the older colonies. The colonists furtlier north 
were promised a pleasanter climate and the people of 



SOUTHERN CAROLINA 141 

the sugar islands better opportunities for acquiring land. 
At last in i66q a small fleet was sent out from England with 
instructions to stop at Barbados for additional colonists. 
In 1670, this company was landed on the south side of tlie 
Ashley River, just above the pomt where it joins the 
Cooper River to form Charleston harbor. 

Within two years this new settlement in and about Early 
"Charles Town" numbered about 400 people and within the P°P"'^tioa. 
next ten years the population increased to about 1200. 
From the beginning, South Carolina had a less homogeneous Racial aad 
population than the older colonies. Of the Englishmen, eSntL 
some were Anglicans, but others were dissenters attracted by 
tlie promise of toleration. Ireland and New England both 
furnished settlers, and emigrants from the West Indies, 
especially from Barbados, formed an influential group. 
Among the most interesting of the early colonists were the 
French Protestants, or Huguenots, whose descendants have 
always played a conspicuous part in the social and political 
life of South Carolina. Here, as in Virginia, the earty planters 
generally had white servants; but negro slaves were soon 
imported on a large scale and in a few years outnumbered 
the whites. This comparatively early estabhshment of the 
plantation system, on the basis of slave labor, was doubtless 
due in part to the example of Barbados. 

The economic development of South Carolina was dis- Economic 

, . _, , ^ . , development. 

appomtmg to the proprietors. For the first few years the 
colonists naturally had to devote most of their energies to the 
problem of food supply, planting corn and wheat and raising 
cattle and hogs. Of these products, they soon had enough 
to export considerable quantities to the West Indies, with 
which they kept up a close connection throughout the 
colonial era — much closer in fact than with the colonies 
to the northward. Some pitch, tar, lumber, and furs were 
exported also; but it was some years before the South 
Carolinians developed an important staple for the European 



142 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Importance 

of 

Charleston. 



Religion. 



The govern- 
ment of 
Carolina. 



trade. Unlike their neighbors in North Carolina, they had 
an excellent harbor. Ten years after the colony was founded, 
the Charles Town settlement — later called Charleston — 
was transferred to its present beautiful site between the 
Ashley and Cooper rivers, where for about a century it 
was the one important seaport in all the southern colonies. 
Though plantations spread along the coast, northward and 
southward, and up the rivers into the interior, many of the 
well-to-do planters spent much of their time in Charleston, 
which consequently became the economic, social, and po- 
litical center of the colony, to an extent not equaled in any 
other English province on the continent. 

The institutional life of South Carolina developed in an 
orderly way. Provision was soon made for the services of 
the Anglican Church, to which most of the influential emi- 
grants from England and Barbados belonged. Though the 
Church of England had a preferred position, there was tol- 
eration for other churches, and there were soon houses of 
worship for CongregationaUsts, Huguenots, and Scotch 
Presbyterians. 

The proprietors set out with the idea of a central govern- 
ment for the whole of Carolina; but the theory could not 
be -made to work, since the northern and southern settle- 
ments were too far apart. During the early years, there was 
gener^j|y a governor commissioned for the whole province, 
who Uved at Charleston, while the actual govermnent of 
the northern settlements, so far as there was any, was usually 
left to a deputy governor. In each of these divisions, forms 
of government developed similar to those in Maryland, 
though some peculiar features of the Fundamental Constitu- 
tions persisted for several years. In each colony, the governor 
or deputy governor and the council represented the pro- 
prietors, while the lower house, or "Common House of 
Assembly," as it was called in South Carolina, represented 
the inhabitants. In South Carolina the tone of social and 



HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS 143 

political life was distinctly aristocratic. In North Carolina 
the spirit was more democratic. 

The early history of South Carolina was much influenced The Anglo- 
by its position as the southern outpost of the English empire frontier, 
on the American continent. From the Spanish point of view 
the English colonists were simply trespassers. Though the 
Spaniards did not then occupy any territory within the 
present limits of South Carolina, they kept a jealous eye on 
the colony and occasionally made trouble, as in 1686, when 
they destroyed an isolated Scotch settlement at Port Royal. 
The province was now too thoroughly established to be 
broken up by such attacks on outlying points; but for several 
decades it was kept in dread of similar expeditions and of 
Spanish intrigues among the Indians. It was evident, too, 
tliat in case of a sudden attack South Carolina would have 
to take care of itself with little help from others. 

More important than the extension of the English frontier The Hudson 
to the southward was the conquest of the Hudson and Dela- ware valleys, 
ware valleys from the Dutch. Here was a block of territory 
under alien control which divided the English continental 
colonies into two isolated sections. Within this stretch of 
coast line were two great waterways into the mterior, on 
which have since developed the two richest and most popu- 
lous cities of the Atlantic seaboard. The full value of the 
region was not, of course, recognized at the time; the Dutch 
had so far made only the slightest use of the Hudson* valley 
and still less of the Delaware country. Yet the strategic 
importance of the section and its possibilities for the fur 
trade were appreciated by the English, who denied that the 
Dutch had any just claim. 

The starting point of the English argument was the Cabot 
voyages, on the basis of which the middle region was included 
in the Virginia charter of 1606 and the New England patent 
of 1620. Between the last two dates, however, the Dutch Thp Dutch 

claim. Henry 

established a counter claim, tlirough the exploration of the Hudson. 



144 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Beginnings 
of coloniza- 
tion. The 
Dutch West 
India Com- 
pany. 



Hudson by the famous seaman from whom it takes its name. 
Henry Hudson was an Englishman and spent most of his 
active life under the English flag; but at this moment in 
his career he was a captain in the employ of the Dutch East 
India Company, which had engaged him to find a passage 
from Europe to China through the northern seas, in order 
to circumvent the Portuguese, who were still trying to 
monopolize the southern route around the Cape of Good 
Hope. One such attempt having failed, Hudson tried to 
find a passage through North America at about the fortieth 
parallel. So it came about that in 1609 he entered New 
York Bay and followed the great river as far as the present 
city of Albany. Then he sailed back to Europe and presently 
left the service of the Dutch company. His last voyage to 
Hudson Bay, on which he lost his life, was in command of 
an English ship. Meantime, however, the reports of this 
voyage proved convenient in subsequent controversies with 
the English and served to stimulate interest in the val- 
ley, particularly in its possibilities for the fur trade. 
During the next ten years, there was no real colonization; 
but the river and the adjoining coast were frequented by 
Dutch traders who made their headquarters on Manhattan 
Island. 

The first serious move toward colonization was made in 
162 1, when the great mercantile interests of the Netherlands 
secured from their federal congress, the States- General, 
the charter of a new corporation known as the Dutch West 
India Company. The promoters of this organization hoped 
to make it a powerful agency for promoting national inter- 
ests throughout the western seas, just as the Dutch East 
India Company was gradually breaking down the Portu- 
guese monopoly in the Indian Ocean and the Far East. 
The scope of the new company included not only the Western 
Hemisphere but also the West African coast, with all its 
possibilities for the slave trade. In this ambitious program. 



NEW NETHERLAND 



145 



the colonization of the Hudson valley was only one item, 
perhaps less important than the conflict with the Portu- 
guese in Brazil. Nevertheless, it was this company which 
founded New Netherland, sending out its first settlers in 1623. 
It is characteristic of the whole subsequent history of this 
region, that these pioneer settlers of New Amsterdam on 
Manhattan Island were not all of one nationality. Less 
than half were Dutchmen, the majority being French-speaking 
Walloons from the provinces then held by Spain but now a 
part of Belgium. 

By 1629, it became evident that the colony was not 
making much progress and that fresh efforts were necessary 
if it was to live and prosper. Accordingly, in 1629 the 
company adopted the so-called Charter of Freedoms and charter of 
Exemptions, an elaborate plan for stimulating emigration and^Smp- 
and enlisting the capital of the wealthy Dutch merchants. ^'°°^- 
Every investor who transported fifty adult colonists to New 
Netherland within four years was to become a patroon, or 
manorial lord, receiving a great landed estate on one of the 
two great rivers of the colony. On this estate, he would 
not only receive rents from his tenants but also exercise 
civil and criminal jurisdiction, though the tenant could 
appeal to the provincial government at New Amsterdam. 
Some provision was also made for smaller landowners who 
could not afford to make such large investments. Mean- 
while the company reserved the control of Manliattan Island 
and a partial monopoly of the fur trade. 

The new plan did not work well, partly because of un- Slow 
fair dealing by some of the directors, who used their inside p''°^''^^* 
information to secure much of the best land. The best known 
of the patroonships actually established was that founded 
in the neighborhood of Fort Orange (Albany) by Killian 
Van Rensselaer, an Amsterdam jeweler. The company's 
attempt to monopolize the fur trade also checked the progress 
of the settlement. So the company was soon obliged to make 



146 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Distribu- 
tion of 
population. 



Racial 
elements. 



The fur 
trade. 



concessions; some of the trade restrictions were removed 
and small freeholders settling in villages were promised a 
limited amount of self-govermnent. These measures at- 
tracted some colonists; but as compared with New England, 
the growth of New Nether land was insignificant. In 1650, 
the Dutch had hardly 3000 people in all their settlements 
as against about ten times that number in the Puritan 
colonies alone. 

This meager population was scattered over a vast area, 
extendmg from Fort Orange on the upper Hudson, and the 
"House of Hope" on the Connecticut to a few straggling 
posts on the Delaware. The greater part of the colonists 
lived on Manhattan and a few villages in the immediate 
neighborhood, on Long Island, Staten Island, and the west 
side of the Hudson. New Netherland was never a purely 
Dutch colony in the sense that Virginia and New England 
were English. Besides the French-speaking Walloons 
aheady mentioned, tliere were many English, chiefly on 
Long Island but some on Manhattan itself. The Jews, who 
have ever since played an important part in the life of the 
city, came to New Netherland in sufficient numbers to 
trouble the Dutch Reformed clergy. 

The chief business of New Netherland was the fur trade, 
which the company tried to maintain exclusively for itself. 
The principal base for this trade was Fort Orange (Albany), 
from which expeditions were made into the Iroquois country 
along the Mohawk valley. There was some exchange of 
goods with the English colonies and the West Indies; but 
various causes, including the restrictions imposed by the 
company and its agents, prevented New Netherland from 
making any adequate use of its magnificent situation. 
Though agriculture was neglected, there were a few farmers 
at work, enough to produce a small surplus for export. 

Political development was extremely backward as com- 
pared with that of Virginia or New England. The ultimate 



DUTCH POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 147 

source of all authority was the States-General, or federal Government 
congress of the Netherlands; but for most purposes the NeSerknd. 
actual control of the colony was vested in the West India 
Company, whose powers were similar to those of the London 
Company in Virginia. The company transacted its business 
mainly through a board of directors in Holland and a director 
and council in New Netherland. The managers at home 
were too far away to keep a close check on aEairs in America, 
and the resident councilors were usually under the thumb 
of the director. The actual government of New Netherland 
was therefore thoroughly autocratic during most of its 
history. The secretary of the province wrote in 1650: 
"The burghers upon the island of Manliattan and thereabouts 
must know that nobody comes or is admitted to New Nether- 
land (being a conquest) except upon this condition, that he 
shall have nothing to say, and shall acknowledge himself 
under the sovereignty of Their High Mightinesses the States 
General and the Lord Managers, as his lords and patrons, 
and shall be obedient to the Director and Council for the 
time being as good subjects are bound to be." During the 
last seventeen years of the Dutch rule the director, or Peter 
governor, was Peter Stuyvesant, who came to this post from ^tuyvesant. 
the West Indian island of Curasao. Stuyvesant was an , 
aggressive, self-confident person, determined to magnify his 
office and resentful of any attempts to appeal from his de- 
cisions. His efforts to regulate the religion and morals of 
his people suggest a somewhat Puritan point of view; but 
he was charged with being corrupt as well as despotic. 

Before Stuyvesant's arrival, discontent with his predeces- 
sors had led the colonists to try some experiments with a 
kind of advisory council and at different times temporary 
groups, called the "Twelve Men" and the "Eight Men," 
were chosen by the inhabitants. There was, however, no No adequate 
regular representative assembly as in the English colonies, rlpre^nta- 
Early in Stuyvesant's administration he proposed a tax ^"*°- 



148 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Local 
governments. 



Religious 
elements. 



for purposes of defense; but to meet objections, he per- 
mitted the colonists to nominate eighteen persons, of 
whom nine were chosen by him as a sort of advisory board. 
Though this was a more permanent institution than the 
"Twelve Men" and the "Eight Men," it was not truly 
representative, since after the first election vacancies were 
filled by the board itself and the governor. Besides^ the 
"Nine Men" had no real legislative authority. As the Eng- 
lish population of the province increased, especially on 
Long Island, discontent with this autocratic system became 
more serious and in 1653 a convention from the various 
towns and villages insisted on the right of the people to 
share m the making of laws. The proposal was rejected 
by Stuyvesant; but, at the very end of the Dutch rule, he 
was forced to call another assembly, which for the first time 
really represented all parts of the colony. This gathering, 
however, ended in a deadlock so that New Netherland came 
to an end without having evolved a permanent system of 
representation. 

In the matter of local government, the Dutch had a 
better record. Though there was no such general develop- 
ment of town life as in New England, the Httle Dutch vil- 
lages enjoyed a limited amount of local self-government; 
they had the right to nominate candidates for local offices, 
the final selection being made by the director and council. 
The English villages on Long Island, accustomed as they 
were to the New England system of town government, had 
to be given more freedom. New Amsterdam, as the capital 
of the province, had for a time no distinct municipal govern- 
ment, and even after such a government was established 
Stuyvesant kept the choice of municipal officers largely in 
his own hands. 

The Dutch colonists, like the English, were accustomed 
to a religious establishment. The Dutch Reformed Church, 
whose ideas of doctrine and government were like those of 



DUTCH RELIGION AND EDUCATION 



149 



the Scottish and EngUsh Presbyterians, was established by Church and 
law in the mother country and officially recognized in New ^^^^'^' 
Netherland. Every patroon was asked to support a min- 
ister, and several of the Dutch Reformed clergy came 
out under the supervision of the Classis, or presbytery, of 
Amsterdam. Notwithstanding the existence of a state 
church, the Dutch government was unusually liberal in re- 
ligious matters and for the most part a similar attitude was 
taken in New Netherland, where religious sects were even 
more numerous than the racial elements in the population. 
Conspicuous among them were the Lutherans and the 
Congregationalists, the latter being especially strong 
among the New England settlers of Long Island. Durmg 
Stuyvesant's administration, however, there was some 
persecution and ordinances were passed prohibiting public 
services other than those of the established church. The 
Quakers came in for specially harsh treatment, but 
others also sufifered. A Baptist preacher was expelled 
from the colony and even the Lutherans complained of 
unfair treatment. Stuyvesant's measures were, however, 
finally disapproved by the company, which was particularly 
anxious not to hamper the economic development of the 
colony by discouraging settlers. 

The Dutch had an enviable reputation in the matter of Public 
public education, and the obligation to provide such education 
was also recognized in New Netherland. Along with the minis- 
ter, each patroon was expected to support a schoolmaster. 
The practice did not, however, quite conform to the theory; 
and one of the chief complaints made by the colonists was 
that the schools were neglected. In 1657, nearly thirty 
years after the Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions, it was 
reported to the church autliorities in Holland that only 
three places in the colony maintained schools. There was 
some progress afterwards and the company itself sent over 
a man to take charge of the Latin School in New Amster- 



ISO 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Indian 
relations. 



dam. Some of the schoolmasters evidently had to work 
hard for theu" meager salaries; the magistrates of Breuckelen 
(Brooklyn), for instance, wanted help in paying the salary 
of a general-utility man, to "conduct the service of 
the church, and to sing on Sunday; to take charge of the 
school, to dig graves, etc., ring the bell, and perform what- 
ever else may be required." 

Throughout its history New Netherland was surrounded 
by unfriendly neighbors. Though the Dutch adopted the 
policy of buying land from the Indians, there was a good 
deal of trouble with the tribes settled about Manliattan and 
up the river. The most serious Indian warfare was between 
1640 and 1646, when settlers were killed and property de- 
stroyed even on Manhattan Island. Even as late as 1655, 
New Amsterdam was attacked by the Indians. Sell- 
ing firearms to the Indians was a dangerous business, but 
it was not effectually regulated because the profits were too 
The Iroquois, tempting. In their relations with the Iroquois confederacy, 
or Five Nations, who occupied the region on both sides of 
the Mohawk Valley, the Dutch were more fortunate. This 
friendly understanding and the trade which developed with 
it were valued by the Iroquois as a support against the French 
in the North and also against their Indian rivals in the fur 
trade. Notwithstanding their alliance with the Iroquois, 
the Dutch managed to keep on fairly good terms with the 
French. 

On the Delaware River, the Dutch had to meet both 
Swedish and English competition. New Sweden grew out 
of an elaborate plan for colonization which looked to the 
cooperation of the Swedes with the Protestants of Germany; 
one of its chief promoters was Willem Usselinx, the founder 
of the Dutch West India Company. The actual result of aU 
this planning was disappointing; but in 1638 a Swedish fort 
was established on the present site of Wilmington, Dela- 
ware, and during the next seventeen years a few hundred 



International 
rivalry. 
New Sweden. 



I 



CONQUEST OF NEW SWEDEN 151 

settlers — Swedes, Finns, and Dutchmen — came out to 
farm and trade under Swedish protection. When the first 
Swedish colonists arrived, the Dutch had no substantial 
settlements on the river, though they still claimed jurisdic- 
tion over this region. During the Thirty Years War, the 
common interest of these two Protestant nations helped to 
prevent a break between the rival colonies; but the Dutch 
always regarded the Swedes as interlopers and were annoyed 
by their competition in the fur trade. When the peace of 
Westphalia brought the long war to an end, the two colonies Conquest of 
naturally clashed. The Swedes won a short-lived advantage Sweden, 
by taking the Dutch post of Fort Casimir on the lower 
Delaware; but in 1655 the Dutch retaliated, the Swedes 
were overpowered, and New Sweden was absorbed in New 
Netherland. 

It was much easier for Stuyvesant to deal with the Swedes Anglo-Dutch 
than with the English. The latter were aggressive, their 
numbers were increasmg, and they had behind tliem a govern- 
ment which, if not always successful in European politics, 
was a keen competitor in everything connected with over- 
seas commerce. While Stuyvesant was denouncing the 
Swedes as trespassers, the English were equally sure that 
the Dutch had no business on the Hudson. Especially 
dangerous was the westward advance of the New Englanders; 
from Connecticut and New Haven they were steadily mov- 
ing along the northern shore of Long Island Sound toward 
the Hudson, and establishing settlements on Long Island 
itself. Yet, as in the Dutch-Swedish rivalry on the Dela- 
ware, the common interests of two Protestant powers re- 
strained the rival colonists for a time and the Dutch did a 
good deal of tradmg with the Virginians and New Eng- 
landers. In 1650 Stuyvesant negotiated a boundary agree- 
ment with his New England neighbors which, though never 
ratified by the EngHsh government, was actually observed 
for a time. It was agreed that Long Island should be divided, 



152 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



War between 
England and 
Holland. 



World-wide 
competition. 



The English 
conquest 
of New 
Netherland. 



tlie English keeping the eastern part while the western set- 
tlements, English as well as Dutch, were included in New 
Netherland. 

In 1652 the old commercial jealousy between England 
and Holland broke out in actual warfare and New Nether- 
land found itself in a dangerous position. The Connecticut 
and New Haven people were eager for an attack on the 
Dutch and in 1654 Cromwell sent out a fleet for that purpose 
under the command of New England officers. Massachu- 
setts, however, was not so zealous. Before the expedition 
was ready, the European war came to an end and New Nether- 
land was saved for the time being. Nevertheless, the com- 
mercial rivalry between the two nations could not be so 
easily settled. On the African coast Dutch slave traders 
were trying to drive out their English competitors and in 
the Far East old jealousies continued. More important 
still. Parliament was making a determined effort to dislodge 
the Dutch from their dominant position in the European 
carrying trade and also to break up their commerce with 
the English colonies by limiting such trade to English ships. 
One great obstacle to success in this policy, and a most con- 
venient base for illegal trade, was the Dutch colony on the 
Hudson. 

Thus English opinion on both sides of the water was 
gradually prepared for aggressive action. In 1664, while 
England and Holland were still nominally at peace, Charles II 
gave to his brother James, Duke of York, a patent making 
him proprietor of a new Ejighsh province extending from 
the Connecticut to the Delaware, thus corresponding roughly 
with New Netherland. In the same year, while this terri- 
tory was still in the possession of the Dutch, James a,ppointed 
a governor, Richard NicoUs, to represent him in the manage- 
ment of his new provmce. In August, 1664, Stuyvesant 
was confronted by an English fleet and a military force too 
strong for him to resist, especially in view of the discon- 



THE ENGLISH CONQUEST 1 53 

tent among his own people. Accordingly he accepted the 
terms offered by Nicolls, and New Nether land became New 
York. Three years later the conquest was confirmed by the 
treaty of Breda (1667), and though, as the result of a new 
Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch held the territory again for 
a few months in 1673-74, they soon had to give it up. Hence- 
forth English control of the Atlantic seaboard extended 
without a break, so far as foreign rivals were concerned, 
from Maine to South Carolina. In the great series of events 
which have established the supremacy of English-speaking 
people in North America, this conquest of New Netherland 
and the Delaware valley ranks in importance with the con- 
quest of Canada in 1760 and the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, I, chs. XVI, XVII; II, 1-37. Tyler, General 
L. G., England in America, 282-295, 310-317; with Andrews, "°'^''^' 
C. M., Colonial Self-Government, chs. V, IX-X. Beer, G. L., 
Old Colonial System (economic factors emphasized). 

Abbott, W. C, Expansion of Europe, II, chs. XXIII-XXVI, Background 
Cambridge Modern History, IV, ch. XXV; V, chs. V, VIII, IX. "^^IRkfand 
Jameson, J. F., Willem Usselinx (Am.' Hist. Assoc, Papers, II, commerce. 
no. 3). Seeley, J. R., Expansion of England, especially Lec- 
ture \1, and his Groivth of British Policy, II, pts. Ill, IV. School- 
craft, H. L., in Eng. Hist. Review, XXII, 674-693. Blok, P. J., 
History of the People of the Netherlands, III, ch. Ill; IV, 34-41, 
186-219, 302-310, 317-338. 

Cross, England and Greater Britain, chs. XXXI-XXXV. Contempo- 
Traill, H. D., Social England, IV, ch. XV. Tanner, J. R., Pepys '^l^f^^^'^"^ 
and the Royal Navy. Airy, O., Charles II, chs. Ill, IV, 

Winsor, America, V, ch. V. Osgood, American Colonies, II, Carolina 

bcGnnninss* 
chs. IX, X. Ashe, S. A., North Carolina, I, chs. VI-XII. Saun- 
ders, W. L., Colonial Records of North Carolina, I, "Prefatory 
Notes," pp. ix-xxv. McCrady, E., South Carolina, 1670-1719, 
chs.I-XV. Ravenel, Charleston, the Place and the People, chs. 

i-m. 



154 



EXPANSION AND CONQUEST 



Sources. 



New Nether- 
land and its 
conquest. 



Sources. 



Salley, A. S., Narratives of Early Carolina. Hart, Contempo- 
raries, I, nos. 78-81; II, 34, Charters and Fundamental Con- 
stitutions in Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 26, 32, 33. 

Goodwin, M. W., Dutch and English on the Hudson, chs. 
I- VII. Janvier, Dutch Founding of New York. Innes, J. H., 
New Amsterdam. Tuckerman, B., Peter Stuyvesant. Van Rensse- 
laer, Mrs. S., History of the City of New York, especially ch. XIV. 
For institutional beginnings see Osgood, American Colonies, II; 
and McKinley, A. E., English and Dutch Towns of New 
Netherland (Am. Hist. Review, VI, 1-18). 

Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 9. Hart, Contemporaries, I, 
i5c^iSS> 169-171. Jameson, J. F., Narratives of New Netherland. 



CHAPTER VIII 

ENGLISH COLONIZATION OF THE HUDSON AND 
DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664 TO 1688 

The conquest of New Netherland and the outlying posts New York 
on the Delaware was comparatively easy, but the new prob- '" ^ ^' 
lem of governing the country and developing its resources 
was far more difficult. The territory which the Duke of 
York secured by the royal patent was not only extensive 
but awkwardly distributed. Its central division was the 
long, narrow strip lying between the Connecticut and Dela- 
ware rivers, extending northward to the French colonies in 
the St. Lawrence valley. A second division included 
certain islands along the coast of southern New England — 
Long Island, Nantucket, Marthas Vineyard, and a few 
others. A third entirely detached section included the north- 
eastern part of Maine, between the St. Croix and Kennebec 
rivers. Besides all this territory definitely granted by the 
patent, the Duke also claimed the Dutch and Swedish set- 
tlements on the western side of the Delaware on the ground 
that they were dependencies of New Netherland. 

Almost every part of this area bristled with controversial Territorial 
questions, some of which were debated for more than a 
century, with the result that the territory of New York at 
the close of the colonial era was quite different from that 
described in the charter. So far as Maine, Nantucket, and 
Marthas Vineyard were concerned, the Duke's paper claim 
was soon disposed of and they became a part of Massachu- 
setts. Before long, by the action of the Duke himself and 
that of the King, the southern territory on both sides of the 
Delaware was taken to form tlie new provinces of New Jersey 

15s 



156 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 



Heteroge- 
neous popu- 
lation. 
Problem of 
assimilation. 



and Pennsylvania. After much wrangling, Long Island was 
brought under the control of New York; but even in the 
central division, something had to be given up. The Duke 
could not hold the territory so far east as the Connecticut 
without bringing on a serious conflict with tlie colony of 
that name, the most important part of which lay west of 
tliat river. Connecticut could also claim a royal charter 
issued only two years before the New York patent. Farther 
up the river was the conflicting claim of Massachusetts. 
Within a few years the controversy with Connecticut was 
substantially settled by a compromise which drew the line 
where it now is, a few miles east of the Hudson. The province 
of New York was thus reduced to two long and narrow strips, 
pivoting, so to speak, on Manhattan Island; one of these. 
Long Island, paralleled the New England coast in a north- 
easterly direction and the other extended northward on both 
banks of the Hudson, toward the French frontier. Fortu- 
nately for the future state of New York, the early English 
governors were able to bring the Iroquois country into an 
English "sphere of influence," thus opening a gateway for 
westward expansion. 

The inhabitants of the conquered province, with their 
dift'erent racial origins, special interests, and religious tradi- 
tions, required careful handling. For many years, the Dutch 
continued to form the principal element in the population. 
Most of them lived within a comparatively small circle, 
centering at New Amsterdam and including a group of vil- 
lages at the western end of Long Island. Up the river at 
Fort Orange were a few settlers whose strategic position with 
reference to the Iroquois trade gave them an importance 
out of proportion to their numbers. Though the Dutch 
had enjoyed comparatively little self-government before 
the English conquest, they had certain local customs which 
they desired to preserve, some of which were guaranteed to 
them by NicoUs when he received the surrender of the 



ENGLISH ADMINISTRATION IN NEW YORK 1 57 

province. Not less difficult to manage were the English 
villages on Long Island, which were deeply imbued with 
New England ideas about self-government and quite un- 
willing to accept quietly tlie role of subjects in a con- 
quered province. 

The government established over these people differed Autocratic 
in important respects from the proprietary systems of g°^'^''"™^"*- 
Maryland and Carolina. It was not thought necessary, in 
a conquered country, to secure the consent of the people 
either in making laws or in levying taxes. Consequently there 
was no provision at first for a representative assembly, 
and Uie proprietor had almost absolute authority. The 
one important safeguard was the right of the colonists to 
appeal from the provincial courts to the Privy Council in 
England. In addition, the Dutch inhabitants of New Nether- 
land had been promised certain privileges in relation to 
property, religious liberty, and local self-government. The 
Duke of York never visited his colony and his autocratic 
powers were therefore delegated, for the most part, to his 
governor, assisted by a council also appointed by the 
proprietor. 

James was fortunate in the man whom he chose for this Governor 
important trust. Richard Nicolls, the first English governor Nkolls. 
of New York, v/as one of those loyal Cavaliers who fought 
for Charles I, and then went into exile with the King's son. 
Nicolls was a soldier but he understood better than most 
soldiers how to deal with civilians. Under the provisions 
of the patent and of his instructions, he had despotic powers; 
but his despotism was generally benevolent, and skiUful 
diplomacy made it tolerable for the various kinds of people 
whom he governed. First of all, he set out to Anglicize the 
province. English place names were substituted for Dutch 
in many cases. So New Netherland and New Amsterdam Establish- 
became New York, and Fort Orange became Albany. The p'^",vu^ 
English county organization was introduced, with sheriffs institutions. 



158 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-168S 



The Duke's 
Laws. 



Governor 
Andros. 



Representa- 
tion given 
and with- 
drawn. 



and justices of the peace, who held court within their respec- 
tive districts and also met once a year with the governor 
and council in a "court of assizes." Through this court, 
NicoUs put into effect a code known as the Duke's Laws, 
based partly on English law and partly on the practice of 
the New England colonies. After a short interval most of the 
old Dutch officers gave way to English constables and over- 
seers, though the frontiersmen at Albany were allowed to 
go on for a time in the old ways. For the English settlers 
on Long Island, these new arrangements meant less political 
liberty than they had previously enjoyed, and there was 
considerable discontent among them, though Nicolls man- 
aged to avoid a serious break. 

In 1674, after the temporary loss of the province to the 
Dutch, the proprietor sent out as governor a man who 
occupied a conspicuous place in American history for the 
next quarter century. This was Edmund Andros, another 
army officer, with influential family connections at the 
English court. Though less skillful than Nicolls in the art 
of managing men, Andros was an energetic official, honestly 
trying to carry out the policies assigned to him and loyal 
to his "King and country." During his administration, 
popular feeling against the unrepresentative character of 
the government increased, especially among the English 
settlers, and in 16S1 some of the merchants refused to pay 
certain duties on the ground that they had never been legally 
authorized. Even the justices of the peace, tliemselves 
nominees of the governor, urged the estabhshment of a 
representative assembly. 

The Duke was reluctant to call an assembly; but the 
difficulty of getting revenue without it finally convinced 
him that it was necessary. In 1683 he sent out a new 
governor with instructions providing that hereafter the 
laws of the province should be made by a legislature con- 
sisting, as in Virginia, of the governor, the council, and 



STATE AND CHURCH IN NEW YORK 159 

representatives of the freeholders, subject to veto by the 
proprietor himself. The New Yorkers were much elated 
and the new assembly showed a decided tendency to magnify 
its office. Among other things, they adopted the so-called 
Charter of Liberties and Privileges which set forth em- 
phatically the rights of the "people" and their representa- 
tives. Offensive as such language was to a Stuart prince, 
James was apparently ready to accept the charter; just 
at this time, however, Charles II died, James, Duke of 
York, became James II, King of England, and New York ^gw York 
became a royal province. There were now great plans on ^ ''°y^' 

province. ! 
foot for a radical reorganization of the colonial governments 

and James decided to keep a free hand by rejecting the 
Charter of Liberties and abolishing the assembly. 

The religious situation was also difficult. The Dutch Problems 
Reformed Church no longer received special recognition from and 'state 
the government, but it was stiU the strongest religious or- 
ganization in the province and in some towns its ministers 
were supported by public taxation. Next in numbers and 
influence came the English Puritans, who were able to pro- 
vide similar support for their Congregational churches in 
several of the Long Island towns. The Church of England 
was very small in New York, but it was now the official 
church and Anglican services were held in the fort on 
Manhattan. The situation was still further complicated by 
the fact that the proprietor himself was a Roman Catholic. 
Under these circumstances, the only possible policy was one 
of toleration, which was actually adopted. This did not, 
however, prevent bitter feeling on the part of the Protestants 
toward the small Catholic minority, which included a few 
officeholders. Unjust as this feeling was, it was partly due 
to the international situation. The New Yorkers felt keenly 
their exposed position on the Anglo-French frontier and 
were impressed by the influence of the Catholic French mis- 
sionaries among the Indians. It was not difficult, therefore. 



l6o HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 



Economic 
development. 



The com- 
merce of 
New York. 



to excite religious prejudice by suggesting that a good 
Catholic could not be a loyal English subject. 

Notwithstanding these differences in religion and politics, 
New York was moderately prosperous during the early 
years of English rule. Some of the thrifty Dutch burghers 
found it possible to make money and acquire land at least 
as rapidly as under their old government. Dutch families 
like the Phillipses and Van Cortlandts were soon represented 
in the provincial council, where they met the new landowners 
of Scotch or English descent. The English governors made 
lavish grants of land to Influential personages and there 
developed along the Hudson a number of large manorial 
estates^ on which the life of the English gentry and their 
tenants was perhaps more nearly reproduced than anywhere 
else in America. Negro slaves had been introduced by the 
Dutch, and their numbers increased after the English con- 
quest, though not on any such scale as in Virginia and South 
Carolina. Side by side with the great landowners and their 
tenantry there were small farmers, Dutch and English, the 
former most numerous on the Hudson and the latter on 
Long Island. During most of the colonial era, however, a 
small number of well-to-do families closely related to each 
other by intermarriage as well as by business interests, 
dominated the society and politics of the province. 

The New York farmers of this period were producing 
enough to enable them to export foodstuffs in considerable 
quantities. In 1678 Governor Andros reported that 60,000 
bushels of wheat were exported annually, besides beef, pork, 
and other farm products. These were, for the most part, 
sent southward by sea, especially to the West Indies. Some 
of this trade was carried on in New York ships, but ship- 
building was less developed than in New England. In one 
branch of commerce. New York distinctly took the lead 
for the next half centuiy. This was the fur trade, which 
had long been the chief attraction of this region to the com- 



THE IROQUOIS AND THE FUR TRADE l6l 

peting European traders, and which after the English con- 
quest became the great bone of contention between the New 
Yorkers and their French rivals on the St. Lawrence. 

During the Dutch period, the fur trade was largely in Tiic fur 
the hands of a group of officials and traders at Albany, who the Iroquois. 
succeeded in establishing close relations with the Iroquois. 
At first the furs which the Iroquois sold to tlieir white 
neighbors were largely taken on their own hunting grounds, 
but as these fields were gradually exhausted, they became 
more and more middlemen between the Albany traders and 
the tribes of the Lake region. After the English conquest, 
the business was left as before in the hands of the Albany 
settlers, still mainly Dutchmen but now reenforced by a 
few British. Among these Albany traders two families 
stand out conspicuously, the Dutch Schuylers and die Scotch 
Livingstons. The chief articles used in the fur trade were 
firearms, coarse cloths, and rum, for all of which there was 
a steady demand among tlie Indians. The Iroquois valued 
their connection with the English, partly because the latter 
could sell goods cheaper than the French, and partly because 
the French, having important trade routes farther to the 
north, were less dependent on the Iroquois. So there was 
formed a close commercial and political alMance which the 
EngUsh used effectively during the next hundred years. 

The English governor who saw most clearly the strategic Thomas 
possibilities of the New York frontier, whether for trade or 
pohtics, was not an Englishman at all, but the Irish Catholic, 
Thomas Dongan. In an era of mtense religious partisanship, 
when the loyalty of Catholics was sharply questioned, this 
Catholic governor was probably the most persistent and 
aggressive defender of British interests in North America. 
In the face of vigorous protests from tlie French governor 
at Quebec, Dongan worked steadily to strengthen British 
influence over the Iroquois, and in 1684 persuaded some of 
the chiefs to put themselves definitely under EngHsh pro- 



Dongan. 



l62 



HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 



Beginnings 
of New 
Jersey. 



Political 
status. 



tection. He had even more ambitious plans, including the 
establishment of trading posts on the Lakes, but these were 
not realized. 

While the Anglo-Dutch farmers and fur traders of New 
York were strengthening their hold on the Hudson-Mohawk 
gateway to the West, a very different development was 
taking place in New Jersey. This province, included in the 
original grant to the Duke of York but almost immediately 
given away to his CavaHer friends, Berkeley and Carteret, 
had one advantage over most of the otlier English colonies. 
Except for the short northern line, drawn from the Hudson 
a few miles above Manhattan northwestward to the Dela- 
ware, its boundaries were all marked by obvious physical 
features. On the east were the Hudson and the Atlantic 
ocean; on the south and west, Delaware Bay and River. 
This, however, is about the only simple and clean-cut feature 
of early New Jersey history. 

The political status of the territory was confused from 
the beginning. From a purely legal point of view, the pro- 
prietors were probably landlords only, without the right to 
estabhsh a government. Consequently when they sent out 
governors and other agents, these officials were confronted 
by the conflicting claims of the Duke's governors at New 
York. The most aggressive of the New York governors in 
this respect was Andros, who undertook to appoint officials 
in various parts of New Jersey and collect customs duties 
from vessels bound to New Jersey ports. In 1679, he even 
arrested Governor Carteret, a relative of Sir George, the 
proprietor, and took him to New York for trial. In the end, 
the Duke of York and the King practically recognized the 
governmental rights of the proprietors; but in the meantime 
these opposing claims had seriously complicated the rela- 
tions of the provincial authorities with the incoming 
colonists. 

As compared with other English colonies. New Jersey 



NEW JERSEY 1 63 

had a long coast line, but it was deficient in good harbors. Geographic 
Consequently there were only two good points of approach ^^*^'^''^- 
fcr the occupation of the territory. One was from the side 
of New York Bay, and it was here in the lowland region, 
much of which is now practically within the metropolitan 
or suburban area of the City of New York, that the chief 
settlements were made during the first ten years of the 
English occupation. The other natural approach was by 
way of the Delaware, and another series of settlements was 
soon estabUshed on or near the eastern bank of that river, 
extending from the bay to a point considerably above the 
present site of Philadelphia. The rough, hilly country of 
northwestern New Jersey remained practically unoccupied 
until a much later period. 

The earliest occupants of this territory were a few Dutch Early 
on the west side of the Hudson, and a handful of Dutch 
and Swedes on the Delaware. Immediately after NicoUs 
took control at New York, he agreed with some New England immigrants 
Puritans to give them lands south of New York Bay, where England.^ 
they could reproduce the characteristic features of New Eng- 
land town life. From the point of view of the New Jersey 
proprietors, these people had no legal rights; but they held 
their ground and for a time helped to make life strenuous, 
if not miserable, for the proprietary governor. Meantime 
the proprietors themselves were making a strong bid for 
more New England settlers. In 1665, they issued a "Conces- Concession 
sion and Agreement," providing for a governor and council ^ent/ZcGs. 
appointed by themselves and a house of representatives 
chosen by the freemen; land was offered on liberal terms and 
a special appeal was made to prospective Puritan settlers 
by promising them not only toleration but grants of land to 
support ministers of their own choice. Under these condi- 
tions, the next ten years showed a considerable influx of 
settlers, partly from the old country but quite largely from 
New England. The promises of the proprietors were fairly 



1 64 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 

kept, but they did not satisfy the aggressive Puritan settlers; 
there was constant bickering about titles and the quit- 
rents reserved by the proprietors. 

About ten years after the original grant to Berkeley and 
Carteret, the situation was complicated still further. So 
far, the whole province had been held by the two proprietors 
jointly; but in 1674 Berkeley sold his rights to two Quakers 
Division named Fenwick and Byllinge, who made a bargain with 
province. Carteret by which the province was divided into two parts, 
known thereafter as East New Jersey and West New Jersey. 
Carteret's share included the new settlements in the northern 
region; but the western, or southern, part along the Dela- 
ware became the scene of the first important Quaker experi- 
West New ment in government. After a great deal of controversy 
between Byllinge and Fenwick, West New Jersey came into 
tlie hands of a large number of Quaker proprietors, among 
whom the leading spirit was William Penn, soon to become 
more famous as the founder of Pennsylvania. These new 
proprietors set up a constitution more liberal than any then 
existing outside of New England. Under this arrangement 
several towns and villages were established along the 
Delaware, of which the most important were Burlington, 
above the site of Philadelphia, and Salem, near the head of 
Delaware Bay. Thus by a curious irony of fate, the 
efforts of two Cavalier proprietors had resulted chiefly in 
giving new homes to New England Puritans and making 
possible for a few years a kind of Quaker Common- 
wealth. 
East New West New Jersey was hardly under way, before Su- 

Jersey. Qeorge Carteret died and the holders of his title sold their 

interest in East New Jersey to another group of Quakers. 
William Penn, who had just secured his Pennsylvania 
charter, was also one of the new proprietors of East New 
Jersey and his influence may be seen in tlie elaborate con- 
stitution now prepared for the latter colony, but never 




m 



WILLIAM PENN 



165 



actually JJut in operation. The original Quaker purchasers 
almost immediately took in other partners of different 
religious affiliations; several of them were not Englishmen 
at all but Scotchmen. Under the influence especially of the 
new partners, many Scottish immigrants, largely Pres- 
byterians, now found their way to East New Jersey. Their 
relations with the New England Puritans who were the 
leadmg element in these nortliern towns may not have been 
altogether happy at first; but in the end these two Calvin- 
istic groups combined with still later immigrants from the 
north of Ireland to make Presbyterianism tlie dominant 
rehgious force in this region. Neither of the Jerseys, 
however, had any established church corresponding to those 
set up in Massachusetts and Virginia. 

At the end of their first quarter century, the Jerseys 
probably had a total population between ten and fifteen 
thousand. About two thfi-ds of them lived in the northern 
province of East Jersey, where the economic and social Social and 
development was similar to that in the rural sections of New conditions, 
England. The inhabitants were largely farmers with moder- 
ate holdings, living together in fairly compact settlements. 
Some effort was made to develop Perth Amboy into an 
important port, but without much success, and throughout 
the colonial era this region was commercially dependent on 
New York. In West New Jersey, there were a few large 
holdings, comparable with those in the southern colonies, 
and there were some negro slaves. 

Meantime, across the Delaware, one of the Quaker pro- 
moters just mentioned had begun the most important 
colonizmg enterprise of the whole Restoration period. In 
the personality and career of Wilham Penn, the founder of 
Pennsylvania, there was a curious meeting of the two quite 
different forces which contributed most largely to British 
colonial expansion in the later seventeenth century. By 
birth and family connections he belonged to that ruling class 



William 
Penn. 



1 66 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1668 

in England which was eager to exploit the economic resources 
of the New World, for themselves as well as for their country. 
Yet by his own choice Penn was also associated with a group 
of radical enthusiasts, quite outside that ruling circle, who 
looked to America as a refuge from intolerable conditions 
at home and as the scene of a hopeful experiment in religion 
and government. 
Peiin;s early Penn's early surroundings seemed adapted to the making 

associations j. c 1 t^- • i • i , ... 

and edu- 01 a successtul politician and courtier, ratlier than a religious 
cation. leader and social reformer. His father. Sir William Penn, 

was, like some of the Carolina proprietors, a servant of the 
Puritan Commonwealth who managed to keep and improve 
his political fortunes under the King. An admhal in Crom- 
well's time, he became one of the chief personages in the 
royal navy under the Duke of York. The official and court 
circles in which he moved included many of tlie people who 
were promoting the colonization of New York, the Jerseys, 
and the Carolinas, or investing their funds in the Hudson 
Bay and Royal African companies. In order to fit the younger 
Penn for a creditable part in this society, he was sent to 
Oxford. When, under the spell of a Quaker preacher, tlie 
boy developed unconventional reUgious ideas, he was given 
tlie benefit of the "grand tour" on the Continent and came 
back, as Pepys said, quite a "modish" youth. Wlien the., 
admiral died, his more worldly contemporaries must have 
tliought that he had done very well by his son. He had given 
the young man the education of a gentleman, access to court 
circles, and a considerable fortune, not to mention a claim 
of £16,000 against the King. With all these advantages, 
the younger Penn might have gone far in Enghsh politics, 
or, if he figured in American history at all, it might have been 
as an ordinary plantation promoter. As a matter of fact he 
did make good use of his assets in property, education, and 
social training; but for purposes quite different from those 
which might have been expected. ; 



THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS 1 67 

The turning point in Penn's career came a few years Pcnn and 
before his father died, when with romantic entlmsiasm he ofVriends!^ 
threw in his lot with a persecuted sect, called by themselves 
the Society of Friends, but better known to the outside world 
as the Quakers. About twenty years before Penn's conver- 
sion, George Fox, the founder of the society, began to preach 
his gospel of a purely spiritual Christianity, independent of 
external forms and deriving its authority solely from the 
voice of God speaking to the individual conscience. As 
Penn himself put it, the "right way to peace with God," Quaker 
which they believed "others had been vainly seeking with- practfce!'^ 
oiit, with much pains and cost, they by tliis ministry found 
•milhin." Forms and ceremonies, priesthoods, and temples 
built witli human hands — all these had served their purposes 
in times gone by; but they were only "signs, types, and 
shadows" destined to disappear. So the Quakers rejected 
not only the Catholic and Anglican priesthoods, but formally 
ordained ministers of any kind. Even the sacraments of 
baptism and the Lord's supper seemed to them quite un- 
necessary; their preachers were not to pray or preach 
at £xed times, but only when moved by the spirit, for which 
they waited in silence. Rejecting a paid ministry for them- 
selves, they refused to pay tithes for the support of any 
other clergy, whether in England or in a Puritan colony. 
They also claimed exemption from certain traditional duties 
to the state, including military service and the taking of an 
oath in a court of justice. Both these things they regarded 
as contrary to Christian teaching. In other respects the 
Quakers were generally law-abiding and they condemned the 
idea of resistance by force even to a tyrannical government. 
Though democratic and, in theory, highly individuaUstic, 
they developed an organization of weekly, monthly, and 
yearly "meetings," which they used effectively for mutual 
protection, supervising the personal conduct of members, 
and spreading the faith. The center of this organization 



1 68 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 



Persecution 
of the 
Quakers. 



Pena's 
defense of 
religious 
liberty. 



Quaker 
projects of 
colonization. 



was the London yearly meeting, at which regular reports 
were received from Friends throughout the world. 

People holding such opinions could hardly escape perse- 
cution at tlie hands of the Restoration government. All dis- 
senters were penalized by the legislation of that time, but 
tlie authorities were especially drastic in tlieir treatment of 
radical sects like the Baptists and the Quakers. The latter 
were made more conspicuous in the public eye by superficial 
peculiarities, like their refusal to use the pronoun you in 
speaking to a single person and their habit of keeping their 
hats on even in the presence of official superiors. So the 
Quakers were frequently imprisoned for holding illegal meet- 
ings and many died in prison. Notwithstanding his social 
connections, young Penn had his share in these experiences 
and was deeply impressed, not only with tlie iniquity of 
persecution for conscience's sake, but almost equally with 
the unfairness of the judges, which seemed to ignore the 
fundamental Enghsh traditions of personal liberty. In 1670 
he set forth his theories in a notable book. The Great Case of 
Liberty of Conscience. 

If England v/as a discouraging place for conscientious 
Quakers, the older American settlements were not much 
better. Massachusetts was tlie only colony which actually 
enforced the death penalty, but almost everywhere there 
was some hostile legislation. It was not strange, therefore, 
that George Fox and other Friends began to think of estab- 
Hshing a colony of their own. For a time West Nev/ Jersey 
seemed to offer the desired opportunity; but to make the 
Quaker experiment a tliorough success tliere must be better 
security against interference, and that required a royal 
charter. Fortunately, Penn's early encounters with magis- 
trates and jailers did not prevent his becoming intimate 
with the highest personages, including the two royal brothers, 
Charles and James. Neither of the latter really sympathized 
with the Quakers, but James's conversion to CathoUcism 



PENN'S CHARTER 



169 



and his brother's secret sympathy with it led them to favor 
toleration, primarily for Catholics but incidentally also for 
Protestant dissenters. This intimacy damaged Penn's repu- 
tation among Anglicans and Puritans; but out of it came, 
first, the royal charter giving him a great tract of land 
along the Delaware; and, second, the Duke of York's 
grant of the "territories" occupied by the early Dutch and 
Swedish settlements west of the Delaware River, which he 
claimed as a dependency of New Netherland. 

The boundaries of Pennsylvania were more definite than 
those of some other colonies, but there was plenty of room 
for differences of interpretation and these led to some of 
the most persistent and disagreeable boundary disputes of 
colonial times. The eastern boundary was the Delaware, 
and instead of the indefinite sea-to-sea grants of Virginia, 
Massachusetts, and Connecticut, Pennsylvania was to 
extend only five degrees westward. There was some question 
later just how that western line should be drawn; but for 
the next half century, the chief difficulties arose about the 
northern and southern boundaries. The northern line of 
the forty-third parallel finally had to be given up on account 
of the conflicting claims of New York to the Iroquois country, 
and the present line of the forty -second degree was accepted 
by the Pennsylvanians as "the beginning of the forty-third 
degree." 

Much more troublesome was the southern boundary, 
which v/as to begin on the Delaware twelve miles above 
Newcastle and follow the curve of a circle, drawn with the 
same twelve-mile radius, until that circle intersected the 
"beginning of the fortieth degree." There were several 
difficulties about this statement. To begin with, the pro- 
posed circle about Newcastle was too far south to intersect 
the fortieth parallel. Then came Lord Baltimore with a 
reminder that all the territory south of that parallel belonged 
to him under the charter of 1632. Unfortimately, his claim 



The Penn- 
sylvania 
charter of 
1O81. 



Boundaries 
of Penn- 
sylvania. 



The con- 
troversy with 
Maryland. 



170 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS 1664-1688 



The govern- 
ment of 
Pennsyl- 
vania. 



Imperial 
control. 



was not supported by actual occupation; and Penn, who 
was determined to have the line drawn far enough south to 
give him a good port for seagoing commerce, maintained 
that the phrase, "beginning of the fortieth degree," included 
the whole zone between the thirty-ninth and fortieth parallels. 
This controversy and that about the so-called "territories" 
farther down the river, which were not included in the 
Pennsylvania charter but had been secured from the Duke of 
York, were not completely settled in Penn's lifetime, and 
they embittered the relations of Pemisylvania and Mary- 
land untn the middle of the eighteentli century. Penn did 
not make good his extreme claim, but he kept the strip 
lying between the Newcastle "circle" and the fortieth parallel 
and was able to build upon its water front a city which soon 
became one of the chief commercial ports of North America. 
He also established his claim to the "territories" now in- 
cluded in the state of Delaware. Evidently Penn was quite 
capable of looking after his own mterests and knew how to 
use his pohtical influence to good advantage. 

Penn's authority over his new province was in many 
respects similar to that of the earlier proprietors. Executive 
power was to be exercised by him dkectly or through his 
agents, but tlie settlers had to be consulted in the making 
of laws. The chief differences between Penn's charter and 
those of Maryland and Carolina were due not so much to 
his own personal views, as to a change in the colonial policy 
of the English government. In tlie older colonies, the pro- 
prietary governments were surprisingly independent of the 
Crown; but by 1681 the authorities in England were con- 
vinced that this arrangement was not satisfactory. Parlia- 
ment had recently passed a series of Navigation Acts 
regulating American commerce, which depended for their en- 
forcement upon the cooperation of the colonial governments. 
In the chartered colonies, however, colonial oflicials were 
chosen either by the inhabitants or by tlie proprietors and 



PENN'S PROPOSALS 171 

were not much interested in suppressing profitable trade, 
even when it happened to conflict with an act of ParUament. 
So the King, though willing to oblige Penn in general, saw 
to it that imperial interests were better protected than in 
the earlier charters. The laws of Pennsylvania had to be 
sent to England for approval or veto; anyone who was 
dissatisfied wiUi the decision of a provincial court could 
appeal to the Privy Council; and in order to make sure 
that the acts of trade were strictly enforced, Penn had to 
keep an agent in England who could be called to account 
for violations of the law. One interesting clause of the charter 
implied the right of Parliament to tax the colonists; taxes 
were to be laid only with the consent of the colonial as- 
sembly, "or hy Act of Parliament in England^ Nothing in 
the charter indicated that this was to be a Quaker colony, 
but there was a clause recognizing the right of tlie Bishop 
of London to send out "preachers" of the Anglican Church 
who were to be protected in the exercise of their duties. 

Some of the restrictions imposed by the royal charter 
caused Penn and his successors considerable inconvenience 
in after years; but at first he had a fairly free hand and the 
Stuart government was as friendly as could reasonably be 
expected. For Penn, as for other colonial promoters, the 
first essential was to attract settlers, and the methods which 
he adopted were not altogether different from those of his 
predecessors, though his plan had some unique features. 
In working it out, he kept two quite distinct considerations 
in view. Penn certainly desired to carry out a "holy ex-peri- Penn 's "holy 
ment," which he believed would be of great value to man- '^'^p^"^'"^*^" • 
kind; but at the same time he wanted fair returns on his 
investment, — a legitimate expectation which, nevertheless, 
led to some disparagement of his philanthropic purposes. 

His first inducement to settlers was the chance to take up Land 
land on easy terms, either in large tracts for a lump sum, with ^° ^^' 
an annual quitrent reserved to the proprietor, or in smaller 



172 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS 1664-1688 

quantities at the modest rental of a penny an acre. Indentured 
servants were to receive fifty acres each on the expiration 
of their terms of service. Here were opportunities for almost 
everyone — artisans whose labor would brmg much larger 
returns in America than they could expect at home, and pros- 
perous middle-class people, of whom the Quakers were coming 
to have at least their fair share, who were glad to become 
landowners on a considerable scale. Penn also appealed to 
men who felt in themselves a special capacity for leader- 
ship, "men of universal spiiits . . . that both understand 
and delight to promote good discipline and just government 
among a plain and well intending people." Such persons, 
Penn thought, though not of "rhuch use or service to great 
Nations under settled customs," might "find room in colonies 
for their good counsel and contrivance." 
Penn's con- Penn also provided a liberal government, which had been 

experiments, worked out in consultation with some of the more influential 
among the prospective settlers. In 1682 he issued his first 
"Frame of Government," whose complicated machinery 
shows the influence of contemporary political speculation; it 
also reminds one of the unlucky Fundamental Constitutions 
of Carolina. The document brings out clearly Penn's sin- 
cere desire to establish the principles of English liberty as 
he understood them. The governorship was to be held 
either by Penn himself or, in his absence, by his agent, or 
deputy; but the councilors and assemblymen were to be 
chosen by the "freemen," or landowners. He proposed 
also to simplify and humanize the administration of justice. 
This first "Frame of Government" proved too complicated 
and was almost immediately replaced by a second, which in 
turn gave way in practice to much simpler forms, partly be- 
cause of popular dissatisfaction but partly also because Penn's 
own opinions changed. In 1701, on Penn's second visit to 
America, he came to an understanding with the colonists 
which was embodied in a "Charter of Privileges." By this 



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 173 

time, tlie peculiar and unworkable features of the system 
had been pretty well sloughed off, and the government had 
come to be much like that of an ordinary royal province, 
but with these important exceptions: the governor and 
council were appointed by the proprietor instead of by the 
King; tlie council was not recognized as an upper house; 
the assembly was stronger and more independent; and the 
freemen had a larger share in the choice of local official. 
In all these arrangements, Pennsylvania and Delaware were 
at first treated as a single province; but in the charter of 
1701 Penn agreed that the Delaware "territories" should 
have an assembly of their own, if they desired it, a privilege 
of which they soon took advantage. 

No part of Penn's program was better advertised or more Religious 
attractive than his promise of religious freedom. Though 
his new colony was meant to be a "Quaker experiment in 
government," he had no intention of limiting its oppor- 
tunities to those of his own faith. Before his first visit to 
Pennsylvania, he agreed with some of his principal asso- 
ciates upon a guaranty of religious liberty, which was subse- 
quently adopted by the colonial assembly. This guaranty 
included freedom of worship for all law-abiding persons 
who "acknowledged one Almighty and Eternal God to be 
the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world." This 
meant liberty not only for all Protestant Christians but also 
for Catholics and Jews. Ofl5ceholding was limited to Chris- 
tians, but this limitation was unimportant in tlie early years 
of the colony, since the number of persons excluded by it 
was neghgible. The later record of tlie colony was not so 
satisfactory. Under pressure from the home government, 
CathoUcs also were excluded from office. Nevertheless the 
outstanding fact is that a great variety of religious sects, 
persecuted in the Old World, found in Pennsylvania a refuge 
where they could work out their theories without interfer- 
ence. 



174 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 



Rapid 
growth of 
population. 



Indian 
policy. 



The new 
settlers. 
Racial 
elements. 



All these advantages, economic, political, and religious, 
were advertised throughout the British Isles and on the 
Continent as well, especially in Germany, which was still 
suffering from the terrible experiences of the Thirty Years' 
War. At Frankfort, which Penn had visited a few years 
before, a land company was organized to take advantage 
of the opportunities offered. The results of this advertising 
were soon evident. At the beginning of 1682, there were 
perhaps a tliousand white people in Pennsylvania and Dela- 
ware, chiefly Swedes, Finns, and Dutch. Then the tide of 
immigration set in strongly; Penn himseK came out that 
year, and by the end of 1683 he reported a population of 
4000. In 1685 he estimated that in about three years ninety 
ships had come over with a total of over 7000 passengers; 
there was also some immigration from the neighboring Eng- 
lish colonies. By 1689 the total population of Pennsyl- 
vania and Delaware was probably about 12,000, and this 
was only the beginning of a remarkable growth which finally 
gave Pennsylvania the largest white population of any 
English colony. Penn took great satisfaction in avoiding 
many mishaps and disasters of the older colonies. He de- 
clared that during the first three years not one ship bound 
for Pennsylvania had miscarried and also that, because of 
the healthy situation, there was no such terrible mortality 
as in early Virginia and New England. An important fac- 
tor in the prospects of Pennsylvania was the skill and fair- 
ness with which Penn dealt with the Indians. About these 
matters a good deal of legend has grown up, but his methods 
certainly won the confidence of the Indians and saved the 
colony from serious troubles. 

The new settlers represented a great variety of social, 
racial, and religious elements. Among the Englishmen who 
came over were some well-to-do merchants who acquired 
large tracts of land and were able to bring servants with 
them. Then there were many artisans, small farmers, and 



RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS 1 75 

agricultural laborers coming out, either at their own expense 
or by making agreements to serve for a term of years, after 
which they could acquire land and become free citizens. 
According to Penn's estimate in 1685, only about half the 
population were English. Of the rest, many came from other 
parts of the British Isles. Welsh immigration has left its 
mark in the names of many places in the vicinity of Phila- 
delphia, such as Merion, Radnor, and Bryn Mawr; there 
were also some Irish Quakers. From the Continent came 
a few French Protestants and Hollanders. More important German im- 
were the Germans, led by the agent of the Frankfort Land ™>g''^°ts. 
Company, Francis Daniel Pastorius, a notable personage, pastorius. 
who laid out the settlement of Germantown, and also deserves 
to be remembered for one of the best early descriptions 
of the province. The Germans showed some tendency to 
develop a separate community life, and Pastorius speaks 
in one of his early letters of havmg secured land in order 
that "we High Germans may maintain a separate little 
province, and thus feel secure from all oppression." The 
German immigration was not large, however, until about 
thirty years later; and on the whole these German pioneers 
got on harmoniously with their Quaker neighbors. 

Of the English, Welsh, and Irish settlers, the majority Religious 

• dements* 

were Quakers. There was, however, a small but aggressive 
Anghcan element, encouraged by royal oflficials, which 
was quite out of sympathy with the "holy experiment." 
Among the German settlers the Lutherans were numerous; 
but Pennsylvania also proved attractive to certain radical 
sects which had broken away from the state churches of 
Germany and suffered persecution for doing so. Con- 
spicuous among them, at first, were the Mennonites, who, 
like the Quakers, emphasized the "inner light." 

In Penn's advertisements, much was said about the wealth Economic 
of the soil and especially the opportunities for wheat grow- 
ing. With these generous resources, the province almost 



176 HUDSON AND DELAWARE VALLEYS, 1664-1688 

immediately became self-supporting. Before long, wheat, 
flour, beef and pork were being exported, especially to the 
West Indies. Penn also did what he could to stimulate 
manufactures and it was partly for this reason that he wel- 
comed the Germans, who began in a small way the manu- 
facture of woolen and linen goods. Especially dear to his 
Philadelphia, heart was the idea of making Philadelphia into an important 
commercial city. Placed just above the junction of the Del- 
aware and Schuylkill rivers, with a good frontage for sea- 
going vessels on either side, it was planned more system- 
atically than any other colonial town. Within four years 
after Penn received his charter, there were said to be about 
600 houses in Philadelphia, some of them substantially 
built of brick. The fisheries were developed early and the 
abundant timber was soon used for shipbuilding. In short, 
Pennsylvania had from the beginning a varied and healthy 
economic development. 
Trials and With this general prosperity, there were naturally some 

ments. " l^ss pleasing features. After a stay of about two )^ears, 

Perm went back to England and thereafter, with the ex- 
ception of a second visit of about the same length (1699- 
1701), he was an absentee landlord and governor, with all 
tlie opportunities for misunderstanding and friction which 
naturally go with such a position. It seemed to Penn 
that the colonists often showed little appreciation of his 
services. Equally serious friction developed between the 
proprietary government and those royal officials whose 
special duty it was to enforce the Navigation Acts. They 
claimed that Penn's agents were not maintaining an orderly 
government, that illegal trade was permitted, and that 
the colony was much too hospitable to pirates. Fortunately, 
during the first critical years, Penn's influence at court 
was sufficient to ward off serious attacks. He had still many 
trials to undergo; and, from the point of view of personal 
profit, the results in his lifetime were disappointing. These, 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



177 



however, are small matters. The really important fact is 
that he had succeeded in his "holy experiment," the es- 
tabUshment of a new commonwealtli on tlie principles of 
civil and religious liberty. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, C. M., Colonial Self -Government, VI- VIII, XI-XII; 
later chapters passim. Channing, United States, II, 37-60, 142- 
151 and ch. IV. Fiske, J., Dutch and Quaker Colonies, II, chs. 
X-XII. Winsor, J., America, III, chs. X-XII. 

Best accounts by Andrews and Channing as above. For in- 
stitutional developments see Osgood, American Colonies, II. 
For New York as a frontier province, see McIIwain, C. H., Wrax- 
aWs Abridgment of the Indian Records, Introduction, especially 
xxxv-lxii. Fisher, S. G., Quaker Colonies, chs. VIII-X. 

Duke of York's Charter in Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 29; 
New Jersey documents ibid., nos. 30, 31, 35-37, 39. Hart, Con- 
temporaries, I, nos. 156, 164-168. James, B. B., and Jameson, 
J. F., Journal of Jasper Danckaerts. 

Hodgkin, T., George Fox. (Fox's Journal in various editions.) 
Hodges, G., WUliam Penn (good brief account); fuller narrative, 
in Janney, S. M., William Penn, and Buck, W. J., William 
Penn in America. 

Fisher, S. G., Quaker Colonies, chs. I-V, XII. Sharpless, I.. 
Quaker Experiment in Government, pt. i, esp. chs. I-III. Institu- 
tional beginnings described in Osgood, American Colonies, II, 
especially ch. XI, and Shepherd, W. R., Proprietary Government 
in Pennsylvania {Columbia Studies). 

Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 38 (Royal charter), 40-41 
(Penn's "Frames"), 46 ("Charter of Privileges"). Myers, A. C, 
Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey and Delaware. 
Hart, Contemporaries, I, nos. 161-163; II, no. 25. 



General 
accounts. 



New York 
and New 
Jersey. 



Sources. 



George Fox 
and Wil- 
liam Penn. 



Pennsyl- 
vania and 
Delaware. 



Sources. 



CHAPTER IX 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



England's 

overseas 

empire. 



The 

mercantile 

theory. 



During the first two thirds of the seventeenth century, 
England had acquired, in more or less haphazard fashion, 
a great overseas empire, chiefly in America though with im- 
portant commercial interests in Africa and the East Indies. 
During the greater part of that period, the novelty of the 
experience and the long conflicts between King and Par- 
liament prevented the working out of any real imperial 
plan. There were certain general ideas about the economic 
function of colonies, but little was done to give those ideas 
any practical effect. By the time of the Restoration a new 
spirit was clearly at work; there was a good deal of fumbling 
still, but there was evidently a serious and fairly consistent 
policy taking shape whose purpose was to weld the scattered 
parts of the empire into an effective union. Though the driv- 
ing force of this seventeenth-century imperialism was eco- 
nomic, it could not be carried through without political 
reorganization, the substitution of a uniform system of 
colonial government for the hit-or-miss methods of earlier 
times. 

The economic principles of the old English imperialism 
were embodied in the so-called Navigation Acts or "acts 
of trade." These, however, cannot be understood without 
some knowledge of seventeenth-century economics and of 
the prevailing ideas about the purposes for which colonies 
were established. According to the orthodox, or mercantile, 
theory, which emphasized the control of individual enterprise 
in the national interest, the wealth and power of a nation were 
178 



ECONOMIC THEORIES 



179 



measured largely by its stock of money and precious metals. 
A given branch of trade was, therefore^ considered good or 
bad according as it increased or diminished this public treasure. 
So far as possible. Englishmen should be relieved from the 
necessity of buying foreign goods and so sending English 
money out of the country. Conversely, any industry which 
produced articles for export was considered desirable be- 
cause it brought foreign money into England and helped 
to create a "favorable balance of trade." 

According to the mercantile theory, there were three Economic 
chief services which colonies ought to render to the mother Jf"the°'*^ 
country. They were expected, first, to employ English colonies, 
shipping, thus not only bringing profits to shipowners and 
merchants but also contributing indirectly to the growth 
of England's naval power, the merchant marine and the 
fisheries being regarded as feeders for the royal navy. Col- 
onies were expected, secondly, to produce articles which 
England would otherwise have to buy either from continen- 
tal Europe or from the colonies of other European nations. 
Some of these articles were tropical or semi-tropical 
products, such as oil, silk, wine, and sugar. " Naval stores " 
also, such as lumber, pitch, tar, were desirable because 
their production by the colonists would make the Eng- 
lish navy and merchant marine more independent of 
the Baltic countries. Lastly, it was hoped that the colonies 
would furnish expanding markets for English manufacturers. 
This consideration was less important at first than the other 
two, but indications of foreign or colonial competition in 
manufactures were jealously watched. 

Though these theories were not applied to the colo- Beginnings 
nies systematically until the Restoration period, they were ^ij^y^'^"^' 
acted upon in a partial and fitful fashion from the beginning 
of the colonial era. The Virginians were encouraged to pro- 
duce silk, olive oil, and wine to take the place of imports 
from foreign countries. When tobacco, at first frowned upon 



i8o 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



Colonial 
policy be- 
fore 1660. 



Navigation 
Act of 
1651. 



by the King, became an important article of export, the 
Virginians were forbidden to send it directly to continental 
Europe; by requiring it to go first to England, English 
merchants were enabled to share in the profits of the trade. 
Colonial interests were not quite forgotten, for Virgmia 
tobacco was protected against Spanish competition, and to- 
bacco growing in England was forbidden. All these measures 
were merely orders of the King and for about forty years 
after the founding of Virginia, Parliament did not legislate 
regarding colonial trade. The King considered the colonies 
as his special preserve and expected Parliament to keep its 
hands off. 

Then came the Civil War and the temporary overthrow 
of the monarchy. For a time, Parliament had the whole 
field to itself, and it began to take a hand in the manage- 
ment of colonial affairs. Its first task was to suppress the 
royalist elements in the Chesapeake colonies and the West 
Indies. This was not very difiicult; but in the meantime, 
the offending colonies were punished by restricting their 
trade. More important still was the growing influence of 
the merchant class, which had, on the whole, taken the side 
of Parliament as against the King and was now anxious to 
secure legislation for its own advantage. Just at this time, 
too, English jealousy of Dutch competition in the carrying 
trade was becoming more intense ; the trade of England and 
her colonies at least must be kept in English hands. The 
outcome of the discussion was the Navigation Act of 1651, 
requiring all colonial exports to England to be carried in 
ships owned and operated by Englishmen; European prod- 
ucts were to be taken to the colonies only in English ships 
or in ships of the exporting country. This act was intended 
especially to destroy the Dutch predominance in the carry- 
ing trade and it helped to bring on the Anglo-Dutch war, 
which Cromwell brought to a victorious close in 1654. The 
law was not, however, strictly enforced as against the Dutch 



MERCHANTS AND POLITICIANS l8l 

traders ia Virginia, and, though Cromwell was mterested 
in commercial expansion, there was no important legisla- 
tion on colonial trade during his protectorate. 

The most important result up to the accession of Charles Makers of 
II was not any particular piece of legislation, but the growth policy. 
of an influential group of merchants who knew what they and'^'^'^^^'^^ 
wanted and a group of politicians with similar ideas about politicians, 
commercial policy. Whether from motives of patriotism or 
from a regard to their own fortunes, these men adjusted them- 
selves easily to the political changes of the Restoration. 
Several of them sat in the Convention Parliament of 1660 
which reestablished the monarchy. The work of these men 
was not spectacular, but they laid the foundations of an 
American policy which lasted until the colonies became 
independent. Two men especially prominent among the 
experts consulted by the government were Martin Noell 
and Thomas Povey, both hard-headed business men, chiefly 
interested in the West Indies. Among the politicians who 
took special interest in commercial and colonial policy, 
one of the most influential was Sir George Downing, a nephew 
of John Winthrop and a graduate of Harvard. From New 
England, Downing found his way back to England by way 
of the West Indies and before long was holding responsi- 
ble positions in Cromwell's government, including that of 
ambassador to Holland. This last appointment he managed 
to keep after the Restoration and he also distinguished him- 
seK by betraying some of his old Puritan associates. Not- 
withstanding this unpleasant business, he was certainly 
able and efiicient, whether in executive business or in shaping 
legislation. Among the men "higher up " who were interested 
in trade expansion were Lord Clarendon, Lord Ashley, 
and the King himself. 

Almost immediately after the King's return a committee 
of the Privy Council was set to work on American prob- 
lems. A few weeks later, the House of Commons appointed 



lS2 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



The acts 
of trade, 
I 660-1 673. 



Colonial 
trade in 
English 
ships. 



Colonial 
exports. 

"Enumer- 
ated 
articles." 



a committee of its own, headed by Downing, "to consider 
of encouraging and regulating the manufacture, both of 
new and old wool, and navigations in EngUsh bottoms." 
Among the other members were several prominent poli- 
ticians, "all the merchants," and all the representatives 
from the seaport towns. The committee worked rapidly and 
in a little more tlian a month after its appointment, the 
Navigation Act of 1660 had been passed by both houses 
and approved by the King. This seems like hasty work, 
but it was really the ripe fruit of a discussion which had 
been going on for many years. This first statute was soon 
followed up by others, of which the most important were 
the Staple Act of 1663 and tlie Colonial Duty Act of 1673. 
During the next hundred years, this legislation was devel- 
oped in detail, modified at certain points, and systematized; 
but the fundamental principles were worked out by the 
merchants, economists, and statesmen of the Restoration. 

The first essential principle was that colonial trade, 
both import and export, was henceforth to be reserved ex- 
clusively for English ships; in order to be considered EngUsh, 
a ship must be EngUsh built, EngUsh owned, and manned 
by a crew of which the master and three fourths of the men 
were English. The purpose of this regulation was to ex- 
clude foreign competition; the English colonists shared 
in this monopoly of trade, as did also the Irish; Scotch ships 
were, however, regarded as foreign; though, under the common 
law as interpreted by the courts, Scotch seamen might be 
counted as English because they also were subjects of the 
English King. 

The second principle embodied in tlie acts of trade was 
that of making England the distributing point for certain 
colonial products. These "enumerated articles," of which 
the most important were tobacco and sugar, were not to be 
sent directly to continental Europe, but were first to be 
landed in a British port, from which, after the payment of 



I'l 



THE ACTS OF TRADE 183 

customs duties, tliey could be reshipped to tlie Continent. 
The law did not prevent the shipment of any of these articles 
from one English colony to another, and this left the way 
open for a good deal of illegal trading. New England ship- 
pers, for instance, would take Virginia tobacco to New 
England; and, widi the connivance of easy-going officials, 
reship it directly to continental Europe, escaping the 
payment of English duties and underbidding the English 
merchant. To check tliis practice and mcidentally to se- 
cure some revenue, Parliament passed in 1673 an act requir- 
ing shippers of tobacco and other enumerated articles 
from one colony to another to pay a small export duty. 
The list of enumerated articles was short at first and 
affected only the Chesapeake colonies and the West Indies. 
No New England products were then included. During the 
next hundred years, however, the fist was considerably 
extended. 

Having shut out foreign ships from the colonial trade staple Act 
and required certain colonial exports to go through Eng- ° ^ •^• 
lish ports, Parliament next undertook, through the Staple Colonial 
Act of 1663, to regulate the importation of .European goods ^poi^'s. 
into tire colonies, thus securing an enlarged market for 
English manufactures, or, in case of goods produced in con- 
tinental Europe, giving the middleman's profits to Eng- 
lish merchants. Ail goods of European production, with a 
few exceptions, had to be shipped to the colonies from Eng- 
lish ports. The exceptions are, however, of some interest be- 
cause they show that while the government was restricting 
colonial enterprise in some directions, it was willing to en- 
courage it in others. One such exception was salt for the 
fisheries of New England and Newfoundland; and though 
Ireland was, under this act, treated much like a foreign 
country, provisions, horses, and servants, all much needed in 
the plantation colonies, could be sent directly from Irish 
ports. 



i84 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



The pro- 
tective 
principle. 



The problem 
of enforce- 
ment. 



Taken as a whole, the acts of trade may be best un- 
derstood as an application to the English empire of what 
is now called the protective principle, that is, the protec- 
tion of English subjects against foreign competition. The 
empire was treated as an economic whole, so far as possi- 
ble independent of the outside world, in which each part 
had its particular function to perform. In the case of shipping 
the protective principle was applied impartially to English- 
men on both sides of the Atlantic. In other cases there was 
a kind of give and take. The Virginians, for instance, had 
to send all their tobacco to England, or to some other Eng- 
lish colony; but in return they were protected against com- 
petition in the English market. If England as a distribut- 
ing center levied toll on the colonial trade, there was some 
compensation in the protection afforded by the English navy. 
Doubtless, when it came to a choice, the interest of the mother 
country was considered first; but, on the whole, and espe- 
cially in its early development, the system worked no great 
hardship on the colonies. 

It was one thing to put this legislation on the statute 
books and quite .another really to enforce it. It was assumed 
at first that the existing colonial governments would do this 
work; but the results were disappointing. Even royal gov- 
ernors hesitated to enforce unpopular laws; proprietary 
governors were still less satisfactory; worst of all, from 
the imperialist point of view, were the New England gov- 
ernors, who, being elected armually by the colonists, were 
much more anxious to please their constituents than to sat- 
isfy a government three thousand miles away. A few far- 
seeing men realized these difficulties from the beginning and 
advocated a thorough reorganization of tlie colonial gov- 
ernments; but this was not easy at a time when the granting 
of proprietary provinces seemed a comparatively cheap 
way of satisfying the King's friends. Meantime, Parlia- 
ment took an important step toward the enforcing of the 



ADMINISTRATION 



i8S 



Navigation Acts in America by providing, in the Colonial 
Duty Act of 1673, for colonial collectors directly responsi- 
ble to the commissioners of customs in England. 

The new collectors, however, soon reported that they 
were not supported by the local authorities. The most ag- 
gressive of these imperial oflicials was Edward Randolph, 
who was specially responsible for New England. From his 
own point of view, Randolph was simply a zealous servant 
of tlie Crown, trying to enforce the plain provisions of the 
law. The New Englanders, however, regarded him as a busy- 
body, interfering in affairs which did not concern him and 
transmitting ill-natured and unjust reports to his superiors. 
There was similar friction in Maryland, Virginia, and North 
Carolina. The statements of Randolph and other collec- 
tors naturally strengthened the aggressive im.perialists who 
were working for a reconstruction of the colonial governments. 
Before long the new policy began to take effect, chiefly through 
the recommendations of a series of governmental commit- 
tees, beginning with the "Council for Foreign Plantations" 
appointed by Charles II in the iirst year of his reign and con- 
tinued after 1674 by a permanent committee of the Privy 
Council for ''Trade and Foreign Plantations." 

Some results of the new policy may be seen by compar- 
ing the earlier colonial charters of Charles II with those 
issued during the later years of his reign. A good example of 
the first group is the Carolina charter, which gave that gov- 
ernment almost unlimited authority within the colony. 
The new charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island also gave 
to those colonies for the first time a legal basis for their 
practically republican governments. Soon, however, the 
influence of more imperiaUstic ideas begins to be seen. In 
the New York charter, for instance, the King reserved the 
right of appeal from provincial courts to the Privy Coun- 
cil; in the Pennsylvania charter of 168 1, issued not long after 
the new customs ofl&cials began sending in their reports, 



Imperial 
collectors. 



Privy 

Council 

committees. 



Development 
of imperial 
control. 



i86 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



Imperial con- 
trol .ipplied 
to New 
England. 



there was a whole series of reservations, — appeals from colo- 
nial courts, a royal veto on colonial laws, an agency in Eng- 
land to answer for the enforcement of the Navigation Acts, 
and a definite statement that failure to enforce those acts 
might result in the withdrawal of proprietary rights. Evi- 
dently the framers of tliis document meant that Pennsyl- 
vania was to be an integral part of a real empire. To the 
thoroughgoing imperialists, however, these reservations 
seemed nothing better than half way measures. Such men 
could see no excuse for chartered colonies of any kind, pro- 
prietary or republican; the executive power at least should 
always be in the hands of a governor appointed by, and 
directly responsible to, the government in England. 

Nowhere was imperial control considered more necessary 
than in New England. The King naturally thought of 
the New England Puritans as the American branch of 
the party which had cut off his father's head and kept him- 
self in exile for many years. Nor was it difficult to prove 
that some of the Massachusetts leaders were claiming prac- 
tical independence. The economic development of New 
England also seemed of little real advantage to the mother 
country. These enterprising colonists were building theii 
own ships instead of employing those of England; they 
absorbed a large part of the intercolonial trade; they 
sent no important staple to England for the profit of Eng- 
lish merchants; and they were generally believed to carry 
on their business with little regard for the Navigation Acts. 
Massachusetts tried to make up for these deficiencies by 
ardent protestations of loyalty but carefully avoided giving 
up any substantial rights. When, in 1664, the King sent 
out commissioners to investigate the situation, they accom- 
plished little except to add new items to the formidable 
indictment which English officials were making up against 
Massachusetts. A few years later the Committee on Trade 
and Plantations decided to institute legal proceedings 



MASSACHUSETTS CHARTER ANNULLED 



187 



against the Massachusetts Bay Company for the forfeiture 
of the charter, and when the case came to trial the corre- 
spondence of Randolph furnished the government lawyers 
witli a mass of damaging evidence. For a time Massa- 
chusetts was able to delay action, but in 1684 the charter 
was annulled by an order in the Court of Chancery. 

For the Massachusetts leaders the revocation of the 
charter was a real tragedy. On this foundation they had 
built up a social structure quite distinct from that of the 
mother country and to a large extent antagonistic to it. 
Now the whole fabric was threatened with destruction. 
From the imperial point of view, however, the overthrow 
of the old Massachusetts government was only one move 
in the working out of a great constructive policy. The 
essential features of this policy were: (i) the establishment 
wherever possible of royal governments, in place of the 
prevailing system of chartered colonies; (2) the combination 
of small and weak colonies into one or more large provinces; 
(3) the strengthening of the executive power, represented 
by royal governors and councilors, at the expense of the 
representative assemblies. It was believed that these changes 
would insure greater efficiency both in the enforcement of 
imperial regulations and in tlie defense of the colonies against 
foreign enemies. 

The revocation of the Massachusetts charter offered 
an excellent opportunity for carrying this policy into effect. 
A few years before. New Hampshire, previously a part of 
Massachusetts, had been made a distinct royal government; 
but in 1685 it was again united with Massachusetts and 
Maine in the province of New England. A temporary govern- 
ment was then provided for this new province with Jo- 
seph Dudley as president. Dudley was the son of one of 
the early Puritan leaders, but his wiUingness to aid in carry- 
ing out the new program made him scarcely less obnoxious 
than an outsider would have been. One of his associates 



Massachu- 
setts charter 
annulled. 



Imperialist 
principles. 



Extension 
of imperial 
policy 
1 685-1 688. 



The 

"Greater 
New 
England." 



THE GREATER NEW ENGLAND 1 89 

was the equalty unpopular Edward Randolph. In 1686 
the system' was developed still further. *'New England" 
was expanded by taking in Plymouth, and Sir Edmund 
Andros, the former governor of New York, was placed at 
the head. The new commission and instructions put prac- 
tically all power, legislative and executive, in the hands of 
the governor and council, all of whom were appointed by 
the King. Even this was not the end. Legal proceedings 
were begun for annulling the charters of several other colonies, 
including Connecticut, Rhode Island, East New Jersey, and 
West New Jersey. In 1688 Andros received a second com- 
mission as governor of the "Territory and Dominion of 
New England," now defined so as to include, besides New 
England proper, New York and the Jerseys. Within four 
years the boundaries of eight distinct colonies had been wiped 
off the slate and a single royal government established 
over them. This compulsory union of more or less uncon- 
genial elements was bad enough in itself; even more 
objectionable was the abolition of the colonial assemblies. 
After being accustomed to practically complete control 
of their own affairs, the New Englanders were now asked 
to adjust themselves to a system in which every department 
was controlled, directly or indirectly, by a government 
three thousand miles away. This was a real revolution and 
its natural effect was to provoke a counter-revolution in the 
colonies. 

Perhaps an exceptionally tactful personage at tlie head 
of the new "Dominion" might have partly reconciled the 
colonies to the loss of their privileges. Unfortunately Andros, sir Edmund 
though honest and in some respects efficient, especially in 
the matter of military defense, was not exactly a diploma- 
tist. Neither was his previous experience, as an army offi- 
cer and as the governor of a conquered province, likely to 
help him much in dealing with stubbornly independent 
people like the Massachusetts Puritans. He cannot be blamed 



Andros. 



IQO 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



Problems 
of defense. 



New Eng- 
land land 
system 
attacked. 



for the main policies of his administration, which were de- 
termined by others; but he was at times offensive in his 
way of asserting his own prerogatives and those of the 
King. Even among his associates in the council, he was 
often overbearing and so aUenated men who might other- 
wise have helped him. Andros was not, of course, the only 
unpopular member of the council. No language was too 
strong to express the popular detestation of Randolph and 
tlie ' ' renegade ' ' D udley . 

The problem which interested Andros most was that 
of defense. On the northern borders of the Dominion, es- 
pecially in New York and in Maine, there were many signs 
of an approaching conflict with the French and the Indians. 
To meet this danger, Andros held a conference with the 
Indians at Albany and also visited the frontier posts in 
Maine. Garrisons were strengthened and steps taken to 
counteract French emissaries among the Indians. This 
work was on the whole well done, though the governor's 
long absence from Massachusetts gave his enemies a chance 
to spread malicious gossip, including the charge that 
he was a papist and had a secret understanding with the 
French. Unfortunately this willingness to believe the 
worst about Andros was partly the result of his own tactless 
handling of a delicate situation. 

One of the first things Andros did was to attack the New 
England land system. The titles by which these colonial 
farmers held their land were questioned and they were told 
that new deeds would be necessary. The land was not nec- 
essarily to be taken away, but fees were required for new 
deeds and the owners were to pay quitrents as in other colo- 
nies. In carrying out this policy there was some unnecessa- 
rily rough talking, as when a Massachusetts landowner was 
told that his Indian deed was worth no more than "a. scratch 
with a bear's paw." Popular feeling was increased by the 
fact that some of the leading councilors were trying to get 



THE QUESTION OF TAXES I91 

land for themselves from the town commons. Doubtless 
tb.e Massachusetts method of allotting land through the 
town organizations was not technically legal; but the gen- 
eral exasperation of the landowning population was a 
high price to pay for insisting on this point. 

No less offensive was the attempt to collect taxes without Taxation 
tlie consent of any representative body. The home govern- ^presenta- 
ment was of course primarily responsible since it had pro- tion. 
vided no legislative assembly except the governor and coun- 
cil. Andros apparently interpreted his instructions to mean 
that the payment of taxes should continue under the old 
colony law, even though the period for which they were 
levied had ex-pired. Instructions were accordingly issued 
to this effect, without a formal vote of the council. Then 
the trouble began; for the Massachusetts revenue system 
required the cooperation of the towns. Some of the towns 
submitted; but the people of Ipswich, under the leadership 
of their minister, John Wise, won a conspicuous place in 
American history by refusing to take the part expected of 
them. For this defiance of the government. Wise and some 
of his associates were arrested, fined, and disqualified from 
holding office. This incident helped to convince the gov- 
ernment that the town meetings should be curbed; and in 
March, 1688, the council forbade the calling of them ex- 
cept for the annual election of town officers. The machinery 
for collecting taxes was also changed so as to make the gov- 
ernment more independent of the towns. In this matter, 
as in the land dispute, opposition on principle was apparently 
mtensified by undiplomatic language. It was said, for in- 
stance, that Dudley, who presided at the trial of the Ips- 
wich men, had told the prisoners that the laws of England 
on which they relied against arbitrary measures were not 
supposed to follow them to the ends of the earth. 

In their sensitiveness about land titles and taxes, the 
Massachusetts people were like other Englishmen the world 



192 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



Disregard 
of Puritan 
traditions. 



Appeal to 
England; 
Increase 
Mather. 



The Revolu- 
tion of 16S8. 



over; but they had special grievances of their own. No 
one thing about the Andros regime kept their nerves more 
on edge than its disregard of Puritan traditions. They 
objected, for instance, to kissing the Bible when taking the 
oath in court. They disliked the lax observance of the Sab- 
bath and were scarcely less annoyed by the Anglican cele- 
bration of Christmas, which they regarded as "popish." 
The established Puritan churches were allowed to go on 
as before, but the new government was expected to encour- 
age the Anglican services. Accordingly, one of the Bos- 
ton churches had to allow the use of its meetinghouse at 
certain times for the Episcopal service, until the new Ang- 
lican church could be built. To the ruling element in Massa- 
chusetts, the use of the prayer book in one of their churches 
seemed nothing short of a scandal. 

After all these controversies, serious and trivial, the year 
1689 began with New England, and especially Massachu- 
setts, in a deeply resentful state of mind. In the previous 
spring, the opposition leaders had sent Increase Mather, 
minister of one of the Boston churches and perhaps the 
ablest man in the colony, to England in tlie hope that he 
might get some relief. Mather had some conferences with 
prominent dissenters, and even with King James II, who 
was then inclined to favor a general policy of toleration 
in order to save his Catholic subjects from the disabili- 
ties imposed upon them by the English law, James was 
unwilling, or unable, to do anything for the New Eng- 
landers; but, fortunately for Mather, the whole situation 
was soon radically changed by the Revolution in England. 

The "glorious Revolution" of 1688 was the result not 
of a really dem.ocratic movement but rather of a conflict 
between two parties in a comparatively small ruUng class, 
a conflict in which politics and religion both played impor- 
tant parts. The political, or constitutional, issue devel- 
oped from the effort of James II to secure for himself a posi- 



THE REVOLUTION OF 1688 



193 



tion more or less independent of Parliament. This policy- 
was much like that followed by Charles II, but it aroused 
more serious opposition because James was less popular 
than his brother and less skillful as a politician. Possibly, 
however, the loyalty of the nation as a whole to the reign- 
ing house would have kept the King on his throne if the 
constitutional controversy had not been complicated by 
religious issues. It was certainly awkward for the Ang- 
lican Church that the King, who was by law the "supreme 
governor" of that church, actually belonged himself to the 
Roman communion. As a loyal Catholic, James could 
hardly be blamed for trying to increase the influence of his 
OAvn faith and free his fellow Catholics from the harsh legis- 
lation against them. Unfortunately for him, he could not 
secure these results by legal methods, and therefore under- 
took by his own authority to suspend the laws excluding 
Catholics and other dissenters from public office. This 
action combined against him various elements which could 
hardly have been brought together in any other way. Be- 
lievers in constitutional government and the supremacy 
of the law were alarmed by the King's claim that he could 
set aside acts of Parliament. Anglican churchmen who had 
strenuously asserted the "divine right" of the monarchy, 
now turned against him because he was attacking the privi- 
leged position of their church. Even the Protestant dis- 
senters, whom Jam^es tried to attract by his promise of 
rehgious toleration, generally agreed that they must save 
Protestantism by uniting, for the time being at any rate, 
with their old opponents of the high-church part3^ 

So, by the autumn of 1688, the King was almost iso- 
lated and unable to make a stand against his Dutch son- 
in-law, WiiUam of Orange, whom his rebellious subjects England 
had invited to become their leader. Before the year ended, 
James was an exile and the Revolution was practically 
accomplished. In 1689, William and his Stuart wife, the 



Results of 
the Revolu- 
tion in 



194 IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 

Princess Mary, were proclaimed jointly King and Queen 
of England — William III and Mary II — with the express 
understanding that they were to rule as constitutional 
monarchs, recognizing the sovereignty of Parliament and 
certain fundamental "rights of Englishmen." These un- 
derstandings were presently embodied in the famous Bill 
of Rights and a few years later in the Act of Settlement 
(1701). The Revolution had important consequences in 
religion as well as in politics. The Church of England re- 
tained its privileged position and to hold important offices 
in the local and central governments it was necessary to 
take the communion in that church. This qualification ruled 
out both Catholics and Protestant dissenters. The Tol- 
eration Act of 1689 gave freedom of worship, in the strict 
sense of that word, to nearly all Protestants, but the Catho- 
lics were refused even this grudging kind of toleration. 
The Revo- The effects of this comparatively peaceful revolution 

lution in ,,. • e ^ ^ 

America. were scarcely less important for America than for England. 
A little less than a century later the political philosophy 
which was used to justify the expulsion of James II was 
used effectively by the leaders of the American revolt against 
George III. The doctrine that government was founded 
upon compact or agreement and that rulers who violated the 
terms of the compact could be set aside was soon well known 
to Americans through Locke's Two Treatises of Government 
and it was echoed in the Declaration of Independence. 
These consequences, however, no one could have foreseen 
at the time. For the present, the chief practical result 
on the American side was the temporary breakdown of the 
new imperial policy and the permanent abandonment 
of its most objectionable features. On both sides of the 
Atlantic, the rallying cry was much tlie same. The colo- 
nists claimed to be defending representative institutions 
against arbitrary government, and Protestantism against 
the supposed Catholic menace. Unrest was general from 



REVOLUTION IN NEW ENGLAND 195 

New England to Carolina; and in a few cases the revo- 
lutionary movement threatened to go farther than the 
new English government was willing to approve. 

First in order came the sudden collapse of the great The Revolu- 
"Dommion of New England." By March, 1689, when it Engl^ch'"'^ 
was known in Boston that James had been deposed, New 
England was ripe for revolt; and on April 18 a carefully 
prepared uprising came to a head in Boston. By the 
end of that day Andros was a prisoner in the hands of the 
insurgents, together with Randolph and a few other ofi&cials. 
Two days later a temporary government was organized 
with some of the older Puritan leaders in control. These 
men hesitated at first; but, after consulting a convention 
of delegates from the towns, they decided to go on with 
the government as it was under the old charter. Accord- 
ing to their tlieory, tlie charter had never been legally re- 
voked and the Andros government was a mere usurpation. 
The other New England colonies soon followed the lead of 
Massachusetts. It was comparatively easy for Connecticut 
and Rhode Island to resume their governments, for the legal 
proceedings against them had not been completed. Plym- 
outh had no charter, but it went back to the simple repub- 
lican government established by Bradford and his associates 
half a century before. All these measures were taken by 
the colonists on their own responsibility, but they now 
sought the approval of the new government in England. 
They felt that they had a strong case. As one contempo- 
rary writer put it, "no man does really approve of the 
Revolution in England but must justihe that in New Eng- 
land also." Andros and his associates, they said, were "King 
James's Creatures who had invaded both the Liberty and 
Property of English protestants after such a manner as 
perhaps the like was never known in any part of the World 
where the English nation has any government." 

From New England the revolution spread to New York. 



196 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



Discontent 
in New York. 



Leisler's 
revolt. 



The people of that province had no well-established tradi- 
tions of self-government like those of their Puritan neigh- 
bors, but tliey had not forgotten the short-lived assembly 
of 1683. Dissatisfaction with arbitrary government was 
complicated by class feeling. The principal officials formed 
an aristocratic class which had made money in trade and 
used it to build up great landed estates. Conspicuous 
among them were Nicholas Bayard, a nephew of old Peter 
Stuyvesant; Stephen Van Cortlandt, mayor of New York; and 
Peter Schuyler, Van Cortlandt's brother-in-law, who was 
mayor of Albany and the most conspicuous figure in the 
Indian trade. Against this ruling group there was now formed 
an opposition party, made up partly of the poorer element 
but headed by Jacob Leisler, an immigrant from Germany, 
whose energy and success m business had given him an in- 
fluential position. Religious feeling was more serious than 
might have been expected in a colony which had long been 
accustomed to a great variety of sects. The Cathohcs were 
comparatively few in number and certainly the Catholic 
governor Dongan had fairly earned the confidence of his 
people by his zealous defense of their interests against the 
French. Gradually, however, the intense anti-Catholic 
spirit which had shown itself in England and Nev/ England 
was worked up in New York; here also fear of the French 
and their Catholic missionaries strengthened popular 
suspicion of the few Catholics who held office under Gov- 
ernor Andros and his New York deputy, Lieutenant- 
Governor Nicholson. 

In the midst of this excitement over dangers, real and 
imaginary, the New Yorkers got word of tlie English revo- 
lution and later of the developments in New England. 
Nicholson, as acting governor, tried to reassure the people 
and strengthen the defenses of the city against a possible 
French invasion. Popular excitement continued, however, 
and on May 31, 1689, there was a clash between the colonial 



LEISLER'S REVOLT 197 

militia and a few English regulars acting under Nicholson's 
orders. The latter now weakened and sailed back to Eng- 
land after giving up the fort on Manhattan to the muti- 
nous militia. Thereupon the insurgents organized a pro- 
visional government with Leisler at the head. They claimed 
to be merely defending the people against arbitrary 
power, and declared that tliey would give up their author- 
ity only to a Protestant governor sent out by tlie new 
King. To strengthen his position, Leisler called a conven- 
tion at New York; but its members represented only 
a section of the province, while Albany and other settlements 
held aloof. This convention now appointed a committee 
of safety, which authorized Leisler to act as commander in 
chief with practically absolute authority. A few months 
later, Leisler tried to legalize his position by accepting, 
as for himself, certain orders from the home government 
which were addressed to the lieutenant governor of the 
province "and in his absence to such as for the time being 
take care for the preserving the peace and administering 
the laws." 

In the management of his revolutionary government, Leisler's 
Leisler showed some energy and ability. War had now P'^o^'^"^^. 
broken out between France and England, and Leisler did 
what he could to unite his own people with the neighboring 
colonies in vigorous measures, both defensive and offen- 
sive; among other things they worked out an elaborate 
plan for a land-and-sea attack on Quebec. His personality, 
however, was unfortunate. Though probably honest and 
well meaning, he lacked education and was constantly making 
enemies by his violent methods. In the north, the Albany 
settlers with Peter Schuyler as their leader held out against 
Leisler until the destruction of the neighboring post at 
Schenectady by the French and Indians made evident the 
need of cooperation against the common enemy. Under 
the old Charter of Liberties, the people were now called 



198 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



The faU of 
Leisler. The 
new royal 
government. 



Unrest in 
the South. 



on to elect representatives to a provincial assembly; but 
the elections were not fairly representative of the province 
as a whole. 

With his own people badly divided, Leisler drifted into 
a serious conflict with the home government. Though 
a new royal governor had been commissioned in 1689, more 
than a year elapsed before he was sent out to his province 
with a few soldiers to support him. The soldiers made tlieir 
appearance early in 1691, but Leisler refused to recognize 
the authority of tlieir commander and some fighting took 
place between the two opposing parties, A few weeks 
later, Governor Slaughter himself arrived, and Leisler 
finally saw the necessity of yielding, though he hesitated long 
enough to strengthen the case of his enemies. He and some 
of his associates were now tried by a special court which was 
strongly prejudiced against him, with the result that Leisler 
and his son-in-law, Milborne, were found guilty and sen- 
tenced to death. They appealed to the home government, 
but before their case could be presented the governor yielded 
to pressure and the two revolutionary leaders were hanged. 
For a time, order seemed to be restored, but for the next 
ten years the mutual hatred of Leislerians and anti-Leis- 
lerians gave to the politics of New York a pecuUarly ven- 
omous character. 

The revolutionary spirit which had upset the Andros 
regime in the northern colonies was also felt in the South. 
In Virginia royal officials noted some unrest among the people, 
though there was no serious outbreak. In North Carolina 
the year 1689 was marked by one of the numerous insurrec- 
tions which were so cliaracteristic of the early history of 
that province. It was only in Maryland, however, that the 
popular discontent resulted in any change of permanent 
importance, and tliere the revolutionary movement was 
directed not against royal officials but against an unpopular 
proprietor. 



THE MARYLAND REVOLUTION 1 99 

- As compared with the northern colonists, Maryland seemed Discontent 
to have little cause for complaint. Wliile tlie New England- jand.^'^' 
ers had seen practically independent commonwealths sud- 
denly merged in a single autocratic administration, Mary- 
land was living under a government not essentially different 
from that established half a century before. The colony 
was not deprived of its representative assembly, and the 
proprietary government was not peculiarly oppressive. 
There were, however, some real grievances. The popular 
party objected, for instance, to the governor's claim that 
he could fix the number of representatives to be elected 
in each county and to his refusal to allow an increase in the 
number. The colonists also complained that they were re- 
fused certain benefits of the English statute law. Probably 
the most serious charge made against Baltimore was that 
he treated tlie province too much like a piece of property, 
filling the principal offices with his own relatives or other 
personal connections. Religious animosity also made trouble. 
The policy of toleration was still observed; but the Protes- 
tants alleged that the Catholics got more than their share 
of the offices. Here, too, the religious issue was made more 
serious by the impending war with the French. 

When the news of the English Revolution reached Mary- The 
land, Lord Baltimore's government was in the hands of the Assodatbn. 
council with a comparatively inexperienced man at its 
head. Though the proprietor, who was then in England, 
promptly ordered the proclamation of the new King and 
Queen, official notice was not received in Maryland until 
much later. This delay played into the hands of the anti- 
Catholic leaders, who by this time had worked up a strong 
revolutionary organization, known as the Protestant Asso- 
ciation. The most conspicuous insurgent leader was an agi- 
tator named John Coode, but associated with him were 
more responsible men, among them the royal collector of 
customs. Supported by a majority of the Protestant inliab- 



200 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



The prob- 
lems of re- 
construction. 



Repre- 
sentative 
assemblies. 



itants, the insurgents soon got control of the provincial 
government and issued a proclamation, explaining their griev- 
ances and emphasizing the need of a Protestant government 
on the eve of war with a great Catholic power. A clever 
appeal was made for royal support by mentioning the ill 
treatment of royal officials by the proprietor's agents and 
declaring the purpose of the association to assert tlie 
sovereign rights of tlie English Crown. A convention was 
then held, made up of partisans of the Protestant Association, 
and in April, 1690, this convention appointed a committee 
with Coode at its head to carry on the government until 
a royal governor could be appointed. 

Thus witliin a few months after the deposition of King 
James, the existing colonial governments, from the Canadian 
border to the Potomac, with the exception of Penn's colo- 
nies on the Delaware, had been swept away. All the colo- 
nial leaders professed entire loyalty to the Revolution gov- 
errmient in England; but they differed widely from each 
other and from the authorities at home about the new order 
to be estabUshed. William III and his advisers were there- 
fore confronted with serious problems of reconstruction in 
which the aspirations of the colonists had somehow to be 
adjusted to the interests of the mother country and of the 
empire as a whole. It seemed to the New Englanders, es- 
pecially, that the overthrow of the Stuart government ought 
to carry with it the complete reversal of Stuart policies on 
both sides of the Atlantic; not merely the restoration of 
representative assemblies, but the return of the colonial 
charters. To most British officials, it seemed equally clear 
thcvt the old arrangements should not be restored. In one 
respect, however, tlie home government recognized the jus- 
tice of the American claims. The government of William 
and Mary, itself founded on the principle of parliamentary 
sovereignty, could not well deny some sort of representative 
government to Englishmen in America. It was there- 



PROBLEMS OF RECONSTRUCTION 



20I 



control under 
the new 
government. 



fore agreed that each colony should have its own elected 
assembly. 

Though the worst feature of tlie Stuart regime in America imperial 
was thus abandoned, no radical departure was made in other 
respects from the policies of the Restoration era. Several 
of the men who had influenced the colonial measures of 
Charles II and James II held office also under the Revolution 
government, and William III himself was a strong believer 
in the royal prerogative. Though he was much occupied 
with European problems and not able to give much personal 
attention to American affairs, his influence was distinctly 
on the side of imperial control. The war with France, which 
covered the greater part of his reign, naturally emphasized 
the need of unity in colonial administration. Along the 
whole seaboard, from Hudson Bay and Newfoundland to tlie 
West Indies, English interests had to be defended against the 
French and their Indian allies. Already tlie confused condition 
of New England after the overthrow of Andros had weakened 
the English defense and shown the disadvantage of dis- 
tributing authority among several weak governments only 
slightly controlled by the Crown. The military arguments 
for centrahzation were reenforced by those of the mer- 
chants and financiers. The principles of the Navigation 
Acts were as popular as ever and the commercial interests 
were determined that they should be strictly enforced. 
It was believed that if the New Englanders recovered their 
charters, they would use their freedom to make the acts 
of trade httle more than a dead letter. 

The natural outcome of this discussion was a series of 
compromises which satisfied neither side, but worked fairly 
well for the next seventy years. The colonists were given 
a considerable measure of self-government, through their 
assemblies; but, through the appointment of royal gov- 
ernors and councilors, the executive power was kept so far 
as possible under the control of the Crown. Practical reasons 



Compro- 
mises. 



202 IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 

of various kinds prevented the full application of this policy, 
but the principle was not forgotten and the aggressive im- 
perialists were always looking for opportunities to apply it. 
New York The Maryland revolution was most satisfactory to the 

Jerseys! home government. Its avowed object was in accord with the 

colonial policy in London, namely, the overthrow of pro- 
prietary authority and the establishment of a royal govern- 
ment. It was agreed on both sides of the Atlantic that at 
this crisis it was desirable to have a Protestant governor. 
So, with the help of a legal opinion from Chief- Justice Holt, 
it was decided that, though the proprietor might keep his 
property rights, the King could establish his own government 
in the province. Accordingly a royal governor was appointed, 
who began his administration in 1692. In New York also 
the question of policy was comparatively simple. The stra- 
tegic importance of the province seemed to make a royal 
government essential; but the uncongenial union with New 
England was given up, and with the royal governor there 
was to be an assembly chosen by the freeholders. East 
and West New Jersey were comparatively unimportant 
and for a few years were left to their respective proprietors. 
The New The New England problem was more complicated. The 

problem. Massachusetts agents, ably led by Increase Matlier and sup- 
ported by influential English dissenters, worked hard to 
get back the old charter of 1629; but the odds were against 
them. An attempt to include the colonies in a general act 
of Parliament, restoring charters which had been annulled 
under the last two Stuarts, also failed. Accordingly, 
Mather decided that half a loaf was better than no 
bread and set out to get the best charter possible. Early 
in the discussion, the King himself decided that there must 
be a royal governor with a veto on colonial laws. This 
was a keen disappointment to the Massachusetts people, 
though it was a natural decision for a soldier-statesman in 
those troubled times. After this question was settled, it took 



NEW ENGLAND REORGANIZED 203 

several months to work out the details, but in September, 
1691, the new charter was authorized. 

Like other features of the Revolution settlement, this The charter 
charter of i6gi was distinctly a compromise. No attempt cimprombe. 
was made to restore the "Dominion of New England." 
The separation of New York and the Jerseys was already 
settled and the little colonies of Connecticut and Rliode 
Island were allowed to resume their charters. The Massa- 
chusetts leaders tried to unite the rest of New England under 
one government; but here the British authorities abandoned 
their own principle of concentration and decided to make 
New Hampshire a separate royal province. Even with this 
reduction, however, the territory of Massachusetts Bay, 
with Maine, Plymouth, and the temporary conquest of 
Nova Scotia from the French, was a large province. The 
governmental provisions of the charter show a similar give 
and take between opposing principles. Imperial interests 
were protected by the royal governor with his veto power; 
even bills which he approved had to be sent to England 
and might be annulled by the Privy Council. That body 
was also to take appeals from provincial courts and so 
could decide in specific cases whether a colonial law was in 
harmony with the laws of England. Property instead of 
church membership was hereafter to be the qualification for 
voting. Disappomting as some of these changes were, the 
Massachusetts people were much better off than their neigh- 
bors in other royal provinces. They had a permanent con- 
stitution, which could not be changed arbitrarily by a simple 
modification of the governor's commission and instructions. 
They could choose a new house of representatives every year; 
and these representatives had unusual power, including a share 
in the annual election of councilors and the right to choose 
some of the more important provincial officers. The old 
system of local government remained practically unchanged, 
and with it the privileged position of the Congregational 



204 IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 

churches. On the whole, therefore, the policy of the English 
government was liberal. Imperial control was thought neces- 
sary for defense and for the enforcement of the acts of trade; 
but local traditions were generally respected and a good 
deal of self-government conceded. 
Pennsyl- So far the English authorities had been concerned chiefly 

vama. ^j^l^ ^j^^ reconstruction of colonial governments disorgan- 

ized by the Revolution; but presently they turned their 
attention to Pennsylvania. Penn's friendship with the Stu- 
arts and his comparatively new charter had saved the colony 
from interference before the Revolution; but now these 
associations seemed suspicious. In his own colony too, 
the royalist and Anglican group was keeping up a fire 
against him, claiming that his government failed to pre- 
serve order, disregarded the acts of trade, and even sheltered 
pirates. Furthermore, the empire was now at war and the 
refusal of the Quakers to bear arms naturally provoked 
criticism from officials who felt the responsibility for national 
defense. All these hostile influences came to a head in 1692, 
when Penn's government was temporarily taken from him 
and intrusted to the royal governor of New York. Penn was 
more fortunate, however, than Lord Baltimore; for in two 
years he cleared himself sufficiently to recover control of 
his province. 
New Jersey. For the Jerseys, the next decade was one of confusion 

and uncertainty. The proprietors were nominally in control 
but their position was so much weakened by doubts about 
their authority and by internal disputes that the proprie- 
tors had little to lose by giving up their political claims. 
In 1702, an agreement was reached by which East and West 
New Jersey were united in a single royal province. For many 
years afterwards the governorship of New Jersey was held by 
the governor of New York, though the two provinces were 
otherwise distinct. 
The English Revolution of 1688 evidently affected colo- 



REVOLUTION PRINCIPLES 205 

nial policy much less tlian the colonists had hoped. The significance 
new government did, indeed, give up the idea of abolishing English 
or crippling the colonial assemblies and showed in general R^^voiution 
more respect tlian its predecessors for local practices and history, 
traditions; but the Stuart policy of concentrating autliority 
in a few royal governments was not forgotten. The acts 
of trade were not relaxed; on the contrary, new machinery 
was created for their enforcement. Parliament, emerging 
victorious from its long conflict with royal prerogative, 
was more ready than ever to assert its authority over all 
parts of the empire. Thus the Revolution of 1688 has a 
logical connection with that of 1776; for it was the sweeping 
assertion of this principle of parliamentary sovereignty 
in tlie case of the colonies, which brought on the American 
Revolution. For the time being, however, the colonists 
were thinking not so much about the danger of parliamentary 
tyranny as about certain principles of political liberty which 
triumphed in the English Revolution and seemed equally 
applicable in America. The Bill of Rights, with its guaran- 
tees of individual liberty against arbitrary government, 
strengthened the determination of Americans to claim tlie 
same rights for themselves. The English Toleration Act 
of 1689 helped forward somewhat, though indirectly, the 
cause of religious freedom in America. Finally, the increasing 
power of the House of Commons encouraged the colonial 
assembUes to take a more decided stand against the royal 
governor and his councilors. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, Colonial Period, ch. V (brief but suggestive), and General 
Colonial Self -Government, chs. I-IV, XVI, XVII. Becker, C, accounts. 
Beginnings of the American People, 134-146. Channing, United 
States, I, 485-495; II, 5-13, 155-230. More extended treatment 
in Osgood, American Colonies, III, chs. V-VII, X, XIII-XVI, 
and "Conclusion." 



2o6 



IMPERIALISM AND SELF-GOVERNMENT 



English 
background. 



Colonial 
policy. The 
acts of trade. 



Adminis- 
tration. 



Documents. 



The Andros 
regime in 
New Eng- 
land and its 
overthrow. 



Leisler's 
revolt. 

Revolution 
in Mary- 
land. 

Sources 
for the 
colonial 
revolutions. 



Cambridge Modern History, V, ch. X (i). Cross, England and 
Greater Britain, ch. XXXVI. Lodge, R., Political History of 
England, 1660-1702. Trevelyan, G. JM., England under the Stuarts, 
chs. XI-XIV. Cunningham, W., English Industry and Commerce 
in Modern Times. 

Ashley, W. J., Surveys Historic and Economic, 309-335 (Eng- 
Ush view). Beer, G. L., Origins of British Colonial Policy, chs. 
XI-XII with his Old Colonial System, I, chs. I-V. Egerton, H. E., 
British Colonial Policy, Bk. II chs. I-IV. 

Andrews, C. M., Committees, etc., of Trade and Plantations 
(Johns Hopkins Studies, XXVI). Root, W. T., Lords of Trade 
and Plantations {Am. Hist. Review, XXIII, 20-41). 

Extracts from the acts of trade in Macdonald, Select Charters, 
nos. 22, 23, 25, 28, 34, 

Andrews, C. M., Fathers of New England, chs. IX-XI. 
Adams, J. T. Founding of New England, chs. XII, XIII, XV-XVH. 
Fiske, J., Beginnings of New England, ch. VI. Kimball, E., 
Joseph Dudley, chs. I-III. Palfrey, J. G., New England, III, IV 
(very detailed). 

Fiske, J., Dutch and Quaker Colonics, II, ch. XIII. Brodhead, 
J. R., History of New York, II, 502-649. 

Fiske, J., Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, II, 150-168. Sparks, 
E. E., Causes of the Revolution of i68g {Johns Hopkins Studies, 

XIV, 477-578). 

Andrews, C. M., Narratives of the Insurrections. 



CHAPTER X 
FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608 TO 1713 

The imperial policies described in the last chapter were The problem 
largely influenced by the desire of English leaders, at home def™se!"^ 
and in the colonies, to organize the national forces more 
effectively for the impending struggle with France, now rec- 
ognized as England's chief rival for primacy in North America. 
Spain also had to be considered; but her power was de- 
clining and for the present her American possessions touched 
those of the English only in the Caribbean islands and on 
the Carolina-Florida frontiers. England and France, on 
the contrary, were both rising powers and in North America 
their interests clashed all along the line from Hudson Bay 
to the lower Mississippi and the West Indies. 

The main base of French enterprise in North America Beginnings 
was then in the St. Lawrence valley. This colony of New France. 
France began in 1608, when the explorer, Samuel de Cham- \ 
plain, under the patronage of Henry IV, laid the foundations 
of Quebec and made it the starting point of a notable series 
of westward ventures in exploration, trade, and missions. 
Two years later, Henry IV was assassinated and the internal 
troubles which followed discouraged great national under- 
takings on either side of the Atlantic. By 1624, however, 
another great figure came to the front. Cardinal Richelieu, 
the real ruler of France for the next eighteen years, was an 
active promoter of American colonization whether on the 
mainland or in the West Indies. He organized for New \ 
France a company called the "Hundred Associates," 
with commercial and political privileges not wholly unlike 

207 



2o8 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 



New France 

and 

Louis XIV. 



Colonial 
policy of 
Colbert. 



those of the English Virginia Company. The development 
of the colony was interrupted in 1629 by a short war with 
England, during which Quebec was captured by an EngUsh 
fleet; but in 1632 the colony was given back to France and, 
under the skillful leadership of the veteran Champlain, was 
able to make a fresh start. A few farmers and fur traders 
settled in the neighborhood of Quebec, westward exploration 
was pushed as far as the western shore of Lake Michigan, 
and the Jesuits began their heroic service as missionaries 
among the Indians. 

The middle years of the century brought fresh difficul- 
ties and discouragements. With not more than five hundred 
fighting men. New France barely escaped destruction at 
the hands of the Iroquois, who disliked French competition 
in the western fur trade and were supplied with firearms by 
the Dutch settlers on the Hudson. Before long, however, 
a new period of prosperity set in. The young King, Louis 
XIV, began to gather about him a group of able men, under 
whose leadership France advanced rapidly to a predominant 
position among the European powers. A spirit of national 
expansion was awakened, which soon made itself felt across 
the Atlantic. 

Louis XIV was himself seriously interested in his American 
possessions, but during the early years of his reign the man 
who had most to do with French colonial policy was the 
finance minister, Jean Baptiste Colbert. Like his English 
contemporaries, Colbert desired a favorable balance of 
trade which would bring money into the kingdom and swell 
the revenues of the Crown. So he tried to organize French 
industry and commerce on a national basis, protecting them 
so far as possible against foreign competition. Manufac- 
tures were stimulated by tariff duties and government aid 
of other sorts. Great commercial companies were organ- 
ized under royal patronage to exploit the slave trade in Africa, 
open up commerce with the East Indies, and develop the 



NEW FRANCE 



209 



Reorganiza- 
tion of New 
France. 



American colonies. In the West Indies, the French islands 
were brought into closer relations with the mother country; 
witli a steadily expanding population of negro slaves, they 
were soon to become formidable competitors of the British 
sugar planters in Jamaica and Barbados. 

In these far-reaching plans for commercial and colonial 
expansion, Canada was not forgotten. The old company of the 
''Hundred Associates" had been weighed in the balance 
and found wanting. After thirty years of effort, New France 
had less than 2500 inhabitants. Agriculture had made little 
progi'ess and the colony even depended in part on the mother 
country for its food supplies. Its only important business 
was the fur trade and even this was precarious on account 
of the hostility of the Iroquois. So the old company was 
dissolved, and although another short-lived company was 
organized, the King decided to keep the government of the 
colony in his own hands. This government resembled that Provincial 
of a province in France. At its head was the governor, usu- govemmeat. 
ally a nobleman and sometimes a man of considerable 
importance. The greatest colonial governor of this period , 
was Count Frontenac, a soldier with an excellent military 1 
record who could adapt himself to the peculiar problems of 
a frontier province. Such a governor could make the office 
one of much greater importance than it was in the hands of 
a provincial governor at home. Second in dignit}^, and some- 
times superior in real power, was the intendant, usually not 
a nobleman or a soldier but a civilian official of the middle 
class, trained in the law. He was the head of the judicial 
system, issued ordinances regulating the conduct of the 
inhabitants, and was expected to serve as a check on the 
governor. The higliest authority in the province was vested 
not in any one official but in the Superior Council, which 
included, besides the intendant, who presided, the governor, 
the bishop, and some other members appointed by the King. 
A proposal to establish a representative assembly was con- 



2IO FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 



Ejqjansion 



The 

westward 
movement. 



Frontenac 
and La Salle. 



sidered and deliberately rejected. As the English provinces 
reflected in their governments the constitutional system of 
the mother country, so New France reproduced the auto- 
cratic institutions of the age of Louis XIV. 

Under this paternalistic government, Canada made 
substantial progress. Immigration began on a larger 
scale, though still insignificant when compared with the 
growth of the English colonies. By the close of Colbert's 
administration, the population had mcreased to about 10,000, 
four times the total for 1663. Economic development was 
also more encouraging. The cultivated area was increased, 
the fur trade expanded, and New France reached across 
the Great Lakes to estabUsh French sovereignty in the 
Mississippi valley. 

The French statesmen who dreamed of their growing 
empire in America were ably supported by their countrymen 
in the colony. One of the ablest of these colonial officials 
was the intendant, Jean Talon, a hard-working adminis- 
trator but also a man of imagination, under whose leadership 
New France resumed its advance into the Great West. 
In 1671, Talon's agent, St. Lusson, staged an imposing cere- 
mony at Sault Ste. Marie, taking formal possession for France 
of the whole region surrounding the Great Lakes. For years 
French missionaries and traders had been moving toward 
the discovery of the upper Mississippi, and the work was 
crowned in 1673, when the trader, Joliet, acting for the gov- 
ernment at Quebec and accompanied by the Jesuit mission- 
ary Marquette, made his way from Green Bay by way of the 
Fox and Wisconsin rivers to the Mississippi. They followed 
the great river as far as its junction with the Arkansas and 
gave the world for the first time accurate knowledge about 
the general course of the stream. 

Talon left New France before the great discovery was 
accomplished, and for the next decade the chief inspiration 
to western trade and exploration came from the new gov- 



THE FRENCH IN THE WEST 



211 



ernor, Count Frontenac, who served from 1672 to 1682. 
A strenuous personality and a hard fighter, who made many 
enemies among his associates in the government and in the 
churcli, he was also a constant and aggressive defender of 
French interests against the English and, when necessary, 
tlieir Indian allies, the Iroquois. Lilce Talon he appreciated 
the importance of the West and did more than any other 
single official to promote French interests in the Mississippi 
valley. Inspired and supported by Frontenac, the great 1 
adventurer. La Salle, began a series of explorations, cul- 1 
minating in his voyage of 1682 down the Mississippi to the ) 
Gulf, where, with another dramatic ceremony, he took 
possession of the great valley in the name of his sovereign 
Louis XIV. 

Exploration was followed by occupation. Marquette French , 
inaugurated a mission among the Illinois Indians and for ofThe^*^'"" ' 



the next hundred years Catholic Christianity was brought to 
the Indians and the incoming French settlers in the upper 
Mississippi valley by a long series of missionaries, chiefly 
of the Jesuit order. With the missionaries came the fur trad- 
ers, some of them official agents like Joliet and La Salle; 
others were trading without license from the authorities and in 
defiance of official rules. La Salle did not despise the profits 
of the fur trade, but his imagination was stirred by the vision 
of a new empire which should redound to the glory of the 
French King and nation. About his famous Fort St. Louis, 
at Starved Rock on the Illinois River, he proposed to gather 
the friendly Indians as a bulwark against the Iroquois and 
the intrusion of English interests, already making them- 
selves felt in the Indian trade between the Alleghenies and 
the Mississippi. His last journey, from which he never re- 
turned, was an unsuccessful effort to establish a military post 
on the Gulf to hold the lower gateway of the great valley. 
A few years later. La Salle's work was carried forward by 
the Canadian adventurer, Le Moyne d'lberville, who in 1699 



Mississippi 
valley. 



212 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 



The mis- 
sionary 
and the 
trader. 



French 
expansion, 
north, south, 
and east. 



Strength 
and weak- 
ness of 
French 
colonial 
policy. 



established at Biloxi the first French settlement on the Gulf 
of Mexico. 

The missionary and the trader each rendered important 
service in opening up the West, but they did not always 
see eye to eye. The Jesuits would have liked to keep the 
Indian converts free from the contaminating hifiuence of 
the lawless elements among the traders, and especially de- 
nounced the brandy trade. Both sides had friends in Quebec 
and at the King's court, where the question was argued back 
and forth. The evils of drunlcenness were acknowledged; 
but the traders declared that if the Indians could not get their 
brandy from the French, tliey would simply go to the Eng- 
lish heretics for rum and be still worse off from a religious 
point of view. The result was a vacillating pohcy, and a 
large amount of illegal and demoralizing trade. 

French colonial expansion was not limited to the West. 
The growth of the sugar islands has already been mentioned; 
they were not only important commercially but also con- 
venient bases for naval and privateering expeditions. In the 
remote wilderness about Hudson Bay, adventurous French 
traders were competing with equally adventurous English 
rivals in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company. There 
were new settlements on the Newfoundland coasts, which 
had long been a resort of French fishermen. About 
Port ;Royal in Acadia the httle colony of fishermen and 
farmers took on a more permanent character. 

In all these enterprises, the French showed not only energy 
and courage, but keen appreciation of strategic positions. 
The territory which they could fairly claim by occupation 
was immense, perhaps greater than could reasonably be 
claimed for the English on the same basis. Measured, how- 
ever, in terms of solid colonization, the comparison works 
out quite differently. Wlien Andros became governor of the 
Greater New England in 1687, he was probably responsible 
for about ten times as many white people as were to be found 



THE "OLD REGIME" 213 

in the whole of New France. This was partly, no doubt, 
because the average Frenchman preferred to stay in France, 
while the French Protestant dissenters who suffered per- 
secution at home were not, like the English, allowed to take 
refuge in the colonies. So far as the Huguenots came to 
America at all, they were forced to settle under a foreign 
flag. The French were certainly less fortunate, also, in hav- 
ing their principal base so far north, m a region less adapted 
for agriculture than the more temperate areas occupied 
by the EngHsh. Taking the period of Louis XIV as a whole, 
the French colonists could hardly complain of neglect by 
the home government. Certamly, during his reign in 
France, no one of the four sovereigns who ruled England 
gave as much time and thought to colonial business as the 
"Grand Monarch," and it would be hard to name any one 
EngUsh statesman of the time who was the equal in this 
respect of Colbert. This paternal supervision secured to the 
colonists a moderately efficient government, but it failed to 
develop self-reliant communities like those which grew up 
under the comparatively easy-going policy of the English 
government. 

In the life of New France, the church had an important Influence 
influence. The bishop sat in the provincial council and took church, 
an active part in public business, sometimes in cooperation 
with the civil authorities, sometimes, as in the case of the 
brandy trade, in outspoken opposition. Under his direction 
were tlie parish clergy, a faithful, hard-v»^orkmg body of men 
who had great influence over their peasant flocks. Besides 
these "secular clergy," there were several religious orders, 
both of men and women, among whom the Jesuits were 
the most conspicuous. The very limited amount of edu- 
cation available in the province was furnished mainly by 
the members of these orders. The church was supported 
partly by tithes from the inhabitants, partly by grants of 
land, and partly by royal grants. 



214 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 

Canadian The economic and social organization of New France was 

eu a ism. based on the modified feudahsm of the old country, now 
modified still further to meet the conditions of American 
life. The unit in this system was the seigneurie, correspond- 
ing roughly to the English manor and varying from a few 
thousand acres to 75 square miles. The lord, or seigneur, 
of this estate held his title from the King on condition of ren- 
dering fealty to the King's representative at Quebec. 
He was to give mihtary service when required, but above 
all to see that his land was occupied by settlers and made 
productive. During the administration of Talon, officers 
and men from one of the King's famous regiments received 
lands extending southward from the St. Lawrence, along 
the Richelieu River. Here they formed a kind of military 
colony, somewhat after the old Roman fashion, which in 
time of war furnished effective leaders for Indian raids against 
the English settlements. The peasants, or habitants, received 
their holdings from the seigneur on condition of certain 
annual payments and a few customary services, which were 
not as a rule very burdensome. Some seigneurs had courts 
of their own; but not all of them cared to exercise this 
privilege, and in any case there was the right of appeal to the 
government at Quebec. Under the paternal supervision 
of the King's government, generally used to protect the 
habitants in their customary rights, Canadian feudalism seems 
on the whole to have worked fairly well. Perhaps the most 
serious obstacle to the development of a tlioroughly pros- 
perous agriculture was the superior fascination of the fur 
trade, which drew some of the most vigorous young men 
away from the hard work of the farm to the adventurous 
life of the forest. 

For three quarters of a century French and English colo- 
nies developed with surprisingly little friction, partly because 
they were separated by great stretches of wilderness within 
which each nationality could develop its own sphere of 



TRADE COMPETITION IN THE WEST 215 

influence. Gradually, however, the intervening spaces be- 
gan to narrow down and tlie more enterprising representa- 
tives of the rival nations began to find traces of each other 
in the debatable "No man's land." French and English international 
rivalry turned not so much on territory, for both sides had ofthe^^^^ 
room to grow in without crowding each other, but primarily \ ^^^ trade, 
on the rich profits of the fur trade. The advance of white f 
settlements naturally pushed this trade farther and farther 
back into the wilderness. Every year a great fur flotilla, 
marshaled by the French coureurs de bois, made its way 
from the Lake region to Montreal. English contact with the 
Indians of the Northwest was comparatively slight at this 
time; their part of this trade was carried on largely through 
the Iroquois, whose fighting spirit made them a power through- 
out the West. Notwithstanding the enterprise of the French 
traders, they could not usually offer quite such good bar- 
gains as the English, In connection with the fur trade of 
this central region, it is important to keep in mind the com- 
petition farther north in the basin of Hudson Bay, and also 
in the South. In the latter region, bounded b)'' the Appa- 
lachians, the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Gulf of Mexico, 
the Indians were coming in contact with traders from all 
three of the great Western nations — Frenchmen from the 
St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, Spaniards from Florida, 
and Englishmen, chiefly from Virginia and the Carolinas. 
Back of the frontier traders stood the merchants of the 
seaboard colonies, and behind the colonial merchants were 
the promoters and investors of the Old World. 

In the decade preceding the Revolution of 1688, both Preparing 
sides were making strenuous efforts to strengthen their posi- ^°'' ^^''' 
tions. The French tried to win over the Iroquois through 
their missionaries and to overawe them by military expe- 
ditions. Frontenac did something during his first gover- 
norship to improve French prestige, but his successors were 
less successful, and on the whole tlie English more than held 



2l6 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 

their ground. In 1684, Governor Dongan persuaded the 
Iroquois to set up the English arms in their villages and 
all the efforts of the French failed to win over more than a 
small minority in the confederacy. In the summer of 1689, 
the Iroquois invaded French territory and massacred the 
settlers of La Chine, within a few miles of Montreal. 
Influence of The Condition of European politics had so far tended 

politics.^^ to postpone a decisive conflict between France and England 
in the New World. There were some clashes during the 
earlier part of the seventeenth century, as when Captain 
ArgaU of the Virginia Company broke up the French 
Jesuit colony on the Maine coast and later attacked the 
French settlement at Port Royal. There was another breach 
of the peace in 1629, when for a short time the English held 
Quebec. For the most part, however, the rulers of Eng- 
land from the accession of Charles I to the expulsion of 
James II, including Cromwell himself, were incUned to 
cultivate friendly relations with France, and the last two 
Stuart kings accepted pensions from Louis XIV. This 
does not mean that Charles II and James II were wholly 
forgetful of English interests; tlaey refused to acknowledge 
the justice of the French claims in America and supported 
Dongan in his controversy with the governors of New France. 
Nevertheless, the close relations between the two royal fami- 
lies did help for a time to keep the peace in America. 
By 1689 the international situation had radically changed. 
Aheady the growing fear of French predominance in Europe 
and English anxiety about French conquests in the Nether- 
lands, had been shown by the short-Hved Triple Alliance 
of 1668, in which England combined with the Swedes and 
the Dutch to protect the Spanish Netherlands against Louis 
XIV. Now in 1689 this rising jealousy of France was given 
free play. The new King of England, William LEI, was already 
the ruler of Holland and the organizer of a great coalition 
which was trying to defend the balance of power against 



KING WILLIAM'S WAR 217 

France. War became inevitable when Louis XIV defied the 
English people by trying to put James II back on the throne. 

What with revolutions on both sides of the water and War between 
the outbreak of war with France, the summer and autumn p-°fnce ^^'^ 
of i68q were a troubled time for the English colonies. Ru- ^'°s Wil- 

^ . ^ liam s War. 

mors flew thick and fast — dangers of attack on the fish- 
ing fleets or on the seaboard towns by privateers, and 
wild talk about English or Irish Catholics combining with 
tlie French and Indians against their Protestant neighbors. 
The temporary disorganization of several colonial governments 
aggravated the general confusion and panic. The mother 
country was asked for help> but English control of the sea 
was by no means secure and during the next eight years 
the home government was chiefly occupied with the Euro- 
pean conflict. For two years there was a hard fight be- 
tween James and William for the control of Ireland, ending 
in William's triumph. Then there was a series of campaigns, 
on a large scale for those days, in the Netherlands and on 
the Rhine frontier. Most important of all, perliaps, was 
the struggle of the French and English fleets for the com- 
mand of European waters. Problems like these required 
most of the attention of William and his ministers, and 
nearly all the money and the fighting men that the nation 
was willing to furnish. So the colonial "King William's 
War" seemed to contemporaries a mere incident of the 
greater European conflict. 

The British did not altogether neglect the protection Thecon- 
of their interests in America. The merchant fleets, which America, 
carried home the great colonial staples — sugar, tobacco, and 
furs — taking back English goods in exchange, were guarded 
by convoys of warships. Special naval protection was also 
given in the West Indies. Land operations in America 
were mainly left to the colonists, though a few regulars were 
kept at New York and some munitions were sent out in 
response to appeals from the colonies. Louis XIV also 



2l8 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 



Count 
Frontenac. 



Frontenac's 
policy. 



was pressed too hard in Europe to send much help to his 
American subjects. He did, however, give them a really 
effective leader — something that the English colonists did 
not have at any time during the war. In the late summer of 

1689, the inhabitants of Quebec welcomed back with en- 
thusiasm their old governor, Count Frontenac, called home 
a few years before because of quarrels with his associates 
but now seen to be the right man for a difficult, almost 
desperate, situation. On the English side, there was over- 
whelming superiority in numbers but a much looser poUt- 
ical organization, with a dozen different governments each 
absorbed in its own special interests and often painfully 
indifferent to the needs of its neighbors. Of the English 
governors, Benjamin Fletcher of New York was perhaps as 
efficient as any, though in other respects he had a bad name. 
Peter Schuyler, the Dutch trader at Albany, also de- 
serves to be remembered for his work in keeping the Iro- 
quois in line for the English. Neither of these men, how- 
ever, can be compared with Frontenac. 

With all his ability and his command of the situation, 
Frontenac's resources were too meager for any ambitious 
military plans; there was talk of large enterprises like the 
capture of Boston and New York, but nothing came of 
them. In tlie main, what the French did was to defend 
themselves against English attacks and try to overawe the 
enemy by border raids. Frontenac was also successful in 
restoring some of the prestige among the Indians which 
the French had lost under the last two governors. For 
his policy of border warfare, he had instruments ready to 
hand among the Indian allies; and the Canadian seigneurs 
furnished daring and ruthless leaders. In 1689 and 

1690, New England was appalled by destructive raids 
on the borders of New Hampshire and Maine. The most 
terrible affair of the latter year was the massacre of tlie Dutch 
and EngUsh settlers at Schenectady, a few miles west of 



THE SPANISH SUCCESSION 219 

Albany, on the Mohawk River. Meantime New England 
fisheries and commerce suffered considerably from French 
privateers. 

By the spring of 1690, the EngUsh colonists were thor- Hostilities 
oughly aroused and ready to retaliate. In May a new ^^c^^^^^g^^/ 
fleet under the command of Sir William Phips, a Maine 
sea captain, easily captured Port Royal in Acadia and con- 
verted that territory temporarily into an English province. 
Flushed by this success, the New Englanders and New 
Yorkers worked out an ambitious scheme for the conquest 
of Quebec. A land force was to move northward from 
Albany while a fleet under the command of Phips sailed up 
the St. Lawrence. The land force did not get beyond Lake 
Champlain. Phips's fleet reached Quebec; but its amateur 
commander was no match for a veteran like Frontenac, 
and after some futile cannonading sailed away without accom- 
plishing anything. The next 3^ear the French recovered 
Acadia and so the New Englanders bad nothing to show for 
two expensive operations. Then followed six years of petty 
warfare, in which the French were on the whole more 
effective. In 1696, an expedition under the personal com- 
mand of Frontenac attacked the Iroquois country and did 
enough damage to strengthen French prestige in the West. 
Neither side, however, could claim a decisive victory, whether 
in Europe or America. So the peace of Ryswick, in 1697, 
closed the war with vital issues still unsettled. 

On both sides of the Avater, international issues were The Spanish 
complicated by the problem of the Spanish succession. The ^"'^'^*^2^^'''^- 
feeble King of Spain was childless, and the two leading claim- 
ants to the throne were a French Bourbon and an Aus- 
trian Hapsburg, representing the two great continental pow- 
ers. Neither rival government was willing to let the other 
carry off the prize, which included among other things the 
trade and empire of Spanish America. Various plans of 
partition were discussed and finally one was apparently agreed 



220 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 



The War 
of the 
Spanish 
Succession 



American 
issues. 
1 697-1 70 1. 



upon between Louis XIV and William III; but the Span- 
iards objected to this division of their empire, and when 
their Kmg died his whole inheritance was left to PhiUp of An- 
jou, a grandson of Louis XIV. Louis could not resist this 
temptation; the young French prince now became King 
Philip V of Spain. 

To statesmen like WiUiam III, who had been working 
hard to preserve the balance of power, this new bond 
between the reigning houses of France and Spain seemed a 
great calamity; but he could not prevent it. Neither tlie 
Dutch nor the English nation was much mterested in a 
family quarrel between Hapsburgs and Bourbons; even the 
balance of power argument did not make much impression at 
first. Before long, liowever, it was clear that something 
more than mere dynastic rivalry was involved. French soldiers 
appeared in the border provmces of the Spanish Nether- 
lands, and in 1701, when James II died, Louis XIV once more 
challenged the independent spirit of the English nation by 
recognizing the Stuart pretender (the son of James II) as King 
of England. Finally, the English merchants began to see a 
danger for their own commerce in certain new regulations 
adopted by the Spanish government under French uifluence. 
So by the end of 1701 public opinion in England and Holland 
turned toward war with France. William III did not live 
to see the actual outbreak of hostilities, but one of the first 
acts of his successor, Queen Anne, was the formal decla- 
ration which opened the War of the Spanish Succession, 
commonly known on the American side as Queen Anne's 
War. 

In America also a good deal had happened since the treaty 
of Ryswick. Both the French and the English were reaching 
out to control the mouth of the Mississippi. In August, 
1699, a British vessel sent out by Daniel Coxe, a famous pro- 
moter, entered the river, but it was too late. A few months 
earlier the French commander, Iberville, had established 



QUEEN ANNE'S WAR 221 

his fort at Biloxi and so begun the new colony of Louisiana. 
Yet even now the French did not have a clear field; for 
Virginia and Carolina traders were active in the Tennessee val- 
ley. In the North also the French gained some advantages. 
Notwithstanding the English claim to a protectorate over 
the Five Nations of Iroquois, those Indians were induced in 
1 701 to make a separate treaty with the Quebec government. 
In the same year, tlie settlement of Detroit by Cadillac, 
strengthened stUl further French influence in the Lake 
region. 

The outcome of Queen Anne's War was determined Early phases 
largely by events in Europe. During the first haK of the Europe^ancT 
war, England and her alHes had the best of it. Under their ^^^nca. 
great generals, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene, 
they gave Louis XIV the severest check he had yet received. 
On the American side during the same period results were 
quite indecisive. For the first time, the English colonies 
had to face a combination of the two Latin powers, France 
and Spain, which had hitherto been about as jealous of 
each other as each had been of the English. The British 
West Indies now had to be guarded not only against the 
French in Guadeloupe and Martinique but also against the 
Spaniards of Cuba, Santo Domingo, and Porto Rico. Even 
Charleston, on the southern frontier of the continental 
colonies, was exposed to naval attacks from the same quarter. 
In general this war, like tliat of King William, was made up 
of petty operations, though the total amount of damage 
done was considerable, especially in New England. Once 
more there were border raids against the lonely settlements 
of Maine, New Hampshire, and western Massachusetts, 
with now and then some daring stroke within a few 
miles of Boston. An awkward feature of the situation was 
the quasi-neutral attitude of the New Yorkers. In order 
to keep the Five Nations out of the war, the French were 
willing to refrain from attacking New York, and the in- 



222 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 

habitants of that province were ready to promote tlieir trade 
interests by keeping aloof from their hard-pressed neighbors 
in New England. Meantime French privateers from Port 
Royal and the West Indies made commerce unsafe all along 
the seaboard, convoys were again provided by the British 
navy, and merchant ships had to go armed. British men- 
of-war and privateers were, of course, also active in commerce- 
destroying. 
The frontiers There werc two New England expeditions against Acadia; 
England and ^^t, as in the previous war, they lacked expert leadership 
Carolina. ^j^^j ^gj-g unsuccessful. On the southern border, results 
were equally indecisive. South Carolina, separated from 
her nearest English neighbor by an almost impassable wil- 
derness, suffered as New England had done from Indian 
raids, often led by white officers. There was a Spanish- 
Indian invasion of South Carolina in 1702, and EngUsh 
invasions of Florida both in that year and in the winter of 
1 703-1 704. Considerable damage was done in each case, par- 
ticularly when tlie English in their expeditions of 1702 
ravaged the settlement of St. Augustine. Neither side was 
able, however, to hold any of the enemy's territory. The 
most striking incident of the war in the South occurred in 
1706, when the South Carolinians under the lead of their 
energetic governor, Sir Nathaniel Johnson, repulsed a 
formidable attack by the French and Spanish fleets. 

Up to 1709, the English colonies had little to show for 
their military efforts and the home government had not 
taken a very active part in the American campaigns. In 
that year, however, the British authorities, partly at the 
suggestion of Samuel Vetch, a Scotch merchant of Boston, 
planned an expedition against Quebec and Montreal. A 
British fleet and some regular troops were to work with 
militia from the northern colonies. The plan aroused 
much enthusiasm. Though Quaker influence in Pennsylvania 
and New Jersey caused some difficulty, even the New York- 



TREATY OF UTRECHT 



223 



ers, hitherto somewhat kikewarm, agreed to cooperate and 
to use their influence with the Iroquois. At the last moment, 
however, the home government decided that it could not spare 
the necessary forces from the European campaigns and so 
the plan fell through. Next year, however. New England 
found some consolation in the conquest of Acadia by their 
own militia, supported by British men-of-war and a few 
marines, and in 171 1 the new Tory ministry in England, 
though trying to make peace in Europe, showed real interest 
in a possible conquest of Canada. They took up the old plan 
of a combined sea-and-land campaign and a strong fleet 
actually sailed up the St. Lawrence. The prospects of suc- 
cess were good even after the loss of some transports in 
the river; but the British commanders were discouraged, 
and turned back without reaching Quebec, much to the dis- 
gust of the New Englanders. 

Meantime events in Europe were moving toward a com- 
promise peace. The allies were the stronger, and France 
was feeling the strain of the long war; but the prevailing 
sentiment both in France and Spain was against accepting 
the extreme terms demanded by the allies. The Spaniards 
in particular were showing a good deal of national feeling 
in favor of the Bourbon Philip as against an Austrian prince 
imposed upon them by foreign troops. The English Tories 
were also anxious to bring the "Whig War" to a close. 
So in 1 7 13 Great Britain and France accepted the treaty of 
Utrecht. 

Though the English demands were not fully met, the 
treaty is an important landmark in the expansion of Eng- 
land's commercial and colonial empire. The acquisition of 
Gibraltar materially strengthened British sea power in the 
Mediterranean. British merchants received new commer- 
cial privileges in Spanish America, including a monopoly 
in the business of supplying negro slaves. In the West 
Indies, the French lost their part of the little island of 



The conquest 
of Acadia. 



Failure 
on the St. 
Lawrence. 



A compro- 
mise peace. 



The treaty of 
Utrecht. 



224 FRENCH AND SPANISH RIVALS, 1608-1713 



Primacy 
in Nortii 
America 
unsettled. 



St. Christopher, but the more important islands were 
saved. In North America, the Anglo-Spanish frontier re- 
mained unchanged, but elsewhere the British gains were very 
great. The English fur-trading interest gained a great vic- 
tory by the abandonment of the French posts in tlie Hud- 
son Bay region. A corresponding advantage was gained for 
the fisheries of New England and the mother country when 
Newfoundland was definitely recognized as a British pos- 
session, though certain rights were reserved to French fisher- 
men. Acadia now became the British province of Nova 
Scotia, though most of the inhabitants continued to be French 
at heart and embarrassed their new governors by keeping up 
relations with their Canadian neighbors. Of special im- 
portance for the westward movement was the clause in the 
treaty by which France recognized the British protectorate 
over the Iroquois. 

Notwithstanding these solid gains, the fundamental issue 
of primacy in North America remained unsettled. The 
conquest of Canada, which seemed almost within reach in 
171 1, was postponed for half a century and the struggle for 
the Great West was stUl in its early stages. 



|||}eneral 
"references. 



New France. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Bolton and Marshall, North America, chs. IV, XIII, XIV. 
Channing, United States, I, loo-iio; II, 131-154, 527-533. 
Thwaites, R. G., France in America, 1-80, with Greene, E. B., 
Provincial America, chs. VII-X. Winsor, America, III, chs. 
III-VII;V, 1-6,13-25. 

Munro, W. B., Crusaders of New France, chs. III-XI. Lucas, 
C. P., Historical Geography of the British Colonies. Canada, I, 
chs. II- V. Colby, C. W,, Canadian Types of the Old Regime. 
Selections from Francis Parkman's series on France and England 
in America in Edgar, P., Struggle for a Continent, 88-286. Chronicles 
of Canada, especially volumes by Colby, Founder of New France 
and The Fighting Governor; Munro, Seigneurs of Old Canada; 




Following JJ4 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 225 

T. Chapais, The Great Intendant. Lives of Champlain by Dionne, 
and Frontenac by Le Sueur, in Makers of Canada series. 

Parkman, La Salle. Heawood, E., Geographical Discovery in The West. 
the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ch. IV. Alvord, C. W., 
Centennial History of Illinois, chs. III-VII. Thwaites, R. G., 
Marquette. Winsor, J., Cartier to Frontenac. 

Grant, W. L., Voyages of Champlain. Kellogg, L. P., Early Readable 
Narratives of the Northwest. Hart, Contemporaries, I, Nos. 39- sources. 
43. Thwaites, editor, Jesuit Relations. 

Cambridge Modern History, V, chs. I, II. McKinnon, J., The_ age of 
Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy, ch. XII. Lavisse, and^French 
Histoire de France, VII, bk. II and bk. Ill, ch. Ill; VIII, bks. I, II. colonial 
Encyclopaedia Britannica (nth ed.), article "France," pp. 840 ^ *^^' 
-845. Mims, S. L., Colbert's West Indian Policy. 

Ca7nbridge Modern History, Y,chs.XIU, XIV. Mahan, A. T., World 
Influence of Sea Power on History, 1660-1783, chs. IV, V. Seeley, P°™^ 
J. R., Expansion of England, Lecture VII. 168Q-1713. 

Parkman, Frontenac and New France. Wrong, G. M., Conquest Border 
of New France, chs. I-III. Drake, S. A., Border Wars of Nm XLlri^."" 
England. McCrady, E., South Carolina, 1670-17 ig, chs. XVI- 
XVII (Anglo-Spanish War). Mcllwain, C. H., WraxalVs Abridg- 
ment, pp. liii-lxv (New York frontier). Sources in Lincoln, C. H., 
Narratives of the Indian Wars, and Golden, G., Five Indian Na- 
tions {Trailmaker Series). 

Channing, United States, II, 153-154. Macdonald, Select The treaties. 
Charters, nos. 45, 47. 



CHAPTER XI 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Importance 
of imperial 
relations. 



The British 
Act of 
Union, 1707. 



By the end of the seventeentli century, the English 
colonies in America had experienced radical changes in 
their relations with the great empire to which they belonged. 
Beginning as trading-company settlements, feudal prin- 
cipahties, or practically republican commonwealths, they 
had gradually been transformed into real provinces of a 
world-wide dominion. They were still self-reliant and im- 
patient of external control; but in a hundred different ways 
their lives were conditioned by the ties which bound them to 
each other and to their common center in the British Isles. 
The British government of the early eighteenth century 
was quite different from what it was when American col- 
onization began. There were, to begin with, important 
changes in the relations between England and the other 
peoples of the British Isles. In 1606, England and Scot-^j 
land were distinct and not very friendly kingdoms, though 
they happened to have the same King, During the next 
hundred years, plans of union were frequently discussed but 
never carried into effect, except for a short time during 
Cromwell's protectorate. Finally, however, the desire of 
the Scotch merchants to share in the commercial monopoly 
established by the Navigation Acts overcame their jealousy 
,of the Enghsh. In 1707 the two nations agreed upon the 
I Act of Union, and thenceforth the two kingdoms had not 
I only a common King but also a common Parliament. So 
: the American provinces became dependencies not of Eng- 
] land only but of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. 

226 



IRELAND AND ENGLAND 227 

Meantime Ireland remained, as before, a dependent Ireland, 
principality, and the constitutional changes in England which 
increased the power of Parliament only emphasized the 
subjection of Irish to EngHsh interests. The Irish par- 
liament was closely checked by the English government, 
which in turn was responsible only to the Parliament of 
England, in which Irishmen were not represented. After 
1707, there was the same control by the British Parliament, 
in which Ireland was still unrepresented. Though the 
overwhelming majority of the Irish were Catholics, the 
Anglican Church was estabUshed by law and the un- 
successful stand of the CathoKc Irish for James II agamst 
William and Mary made their position harder than ever. 
The Protestant Irish of the North were better off, but they The Scotch- 
also had their trials. As dissenters from the established ^"'^^• 
church, they were subject to various disabilities and the 
development of their manufactures was jealously watched by 
the English mercantile interest, through whose influence 
Parliament passed in 1699 a bill prohibiting the export of 
Irish woolens. The colonies profited by this illiberal policy 
through the great Scotch-Irish immigration of the eighteenth 
century, but England paid the penalty in the loss of a sturdy 
population and in the anti-English feeling of the emigrants 
and their descendants. 

Of primary importance for the Americans of the provincial Constitu- 
era were the changes which took place in the government of changes in 
England itself. The Revolution of 1688 disposed of the King's England, 
claim to a prerogative above the law; but it did not establish 
the exact relation between the legislative power of Parliament 
and the executive power of the Crown. William III was no 
figurehead; though he took advice from his ministers and 
chose them partly because of their influence in Parliament, 
he made personally many important decisions, includmg 
some relating to colonial business. His conception of the 
kingship was that of a real ruler, not altogether unlike the 



228 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Parlia- 
mentary 
government. 



Unrepre- 
sentative 
character of 
Parliament. 



The Privy 
Comicil ; 
the cabinet. 



American President, So long as he lived, WUliam was fairly 
successful in carrying out his theory. With his successors, 
it was quite different. Under Queen Anne, and still more 
^nder the first two German Kings, George I and George II, 
whose ignorance of the English language and English pol- 
itics made them quite dependent on their advisers, the min- 
isters came more and more to the front while the personal 
opinions of the King grew less important. The Georges 
held the throne by act of Parliament, and if they wished to 
, keep it they had to act in accordance with public opinion. 
Thus the ministry became practically an executive committee 
of the House of Commons, or rather of the majority party 
in that house, responsible to it both in shaping legislation 
and in the decision of executive policies. 

Parliamentary government did not mean democracy. 
Though the House of Lords had lost some of its power, the 
landed aristocracy was able through its family connections, 
its wealth, and its social prestige to keep a strong hold on 
the House of Commons, many of whose members were, in 
spite of the forms of popular election, practically chosen 
by influential noblemen. Even when tliere were real 
elections, only a small fraction of the population could vote, 
and bribery was general. To make matters worse, the suc- 
cessful candidates were frequently tied up with the min- 
istry which happened to be in power, by means of sinecure 
ofl5ces and pensions. The men who shaped national policy 
spoke, therefore, not for the v/hole people but for a com- 
paratively small group made up of the landed aristocracy 
and, to an increasing extent, of the great mercantile inter- 
ests. Among the latter were some absentee landlords with 
large estates in the sugar islands of the West Indies, a fact 
which sometimes proved inconvenient for the continental 
colonists. 

The highest executive authority for both Great Britain 
and the colonies was the Privy Council, or the "King in 



THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATION 229 

Council." The final action or "order in council" was usu- 
ally a formal matter, the real decisions being made by 
committees and more and more by the little group of min- 
isters known as the cabinet, who were also the leaders of 
the House of Commons. During tliis period the unity of 
the cabinet was strengtliened by the recognition of its 
leader as the prime minister. The most important holder 
of this position during the first half of the eighteenth cen- 
tury was Sir Robert Walpole, who by sheer ability, as well 
as by parliamentary corruption, was for twenty years the real 
head of the government. While larger questions of policy 
were determined by the cabinet, actual administration was 
left to various executive departments managed by single 
heads or by administrative boards, such as the Treasury 
Board, the Commissioners of Customs, and the Board of 
Admiralty, which had charge of the royal navy. There 
had been some improvements in business methods, but 
the organization wa^ still loose and wasteful. In few 
departments was there any effective concentration of re- 
sponsibility, and ofiices dealing with closely related or over- 
lapping subjects were often located at inconvenient distances 
from each other. These conditions led to long delays and 
confusion of authority, which were especially serious in 
colonial administration. 

Of the great ministers, those most closely concerned The 
with the colonies were the "principal secretaries of state," se^retanes 
of whom there were in this period sometimes two and some- °* state." 
times three. At first there was no clear distribution of 
authority among these secretaries, who dealt with a great 
variety of matters, domestic, foreign, and colonial, including 
the absorbing problems of "practical" party politics. The 
situation was somewhat improved later by dividing the 
secretaryships between the "Northern" and "Southern" 
departments, and the secretary of state for the Southern 
department was made specifically responsible, among other 



y^ 



230 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 

I things, for colonial affairs. The chief holder of this oflSce 
/ in the second quarter of the eighteenth century was the 
I Duke of Newcastle, an influential figure in party politics. 
About the best that can be said of him as a colonial admin- 
istrator is tliat as a rule he avoided disturbing questions; 
his ineflQciency and ignorance may have been exaggerated, 
but they were bad enough at best. 
The Board \ Not until the eve of the American Revolution was there 
, a real colonial secretary with a real colonial office. The 
I nearest approach to such an office was that of the Lords 
I Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, better known as 
i the Board of Trade. This board, organized in 1696, took 
the place of the former Privy Council Committee on Trade 
and Plantations. It included, first, as ex-officio mem- 
bers, certain ministers, of whom the most important 
for this purpose were the secretaries of state; and, secondly, 
a small group of salaried members. These latter were ex- 
pected to furnish expert service and actually did most of 
the business, though one or more of the ex-officio members 
commonly attended the meetings. The Board of Trade f 
\was, as its name suggests, primarily concerned with the | 
•promotion of commerce. The supervision of colonial govern- 
ment was only one of several duties imposed upon it; this 
function being considered important not so much as an end 
in itself, but because of its relation to the protection and 
ex-pansion of trade. Accordingly, the board was expected 
to study the resources and industries of tlie colonies, en- 
couraging those which were thought useful to tlie mother 
country and discouraging those which competed, or threat- 
ened to compete, with British trade and manufactures. 
Keeping these objects always in view, the board drafted 
commissions and instructions for the royal governors and 
corresponded with them after their appointment; it exam- 
ined colonial laws and recommended approval or re- 
jection; it also inquired into the administration of justice. 



THE BOARD OF TRADE 23 1 

The usefulness and influence of the Board of Trade Membership 
varied greatly at diiJerent times. In the early years, there Board, 
were a few members who were as nearly expert in colonial 
business as could be expected of men who had never been in 
America. One of tliem was John Locke, tlie poUtical scien- John Locke, 
tist and philosopher, whose connection with American affairs 
began more than twenty-five years before his appointment 
to the board. Another was William Blathwayt, for many 
years secretary to the old Committee on Trade and Plan- 
tations. Membership changed with the exigencies of party 
pohtics, and in the second quarter of the eighteenth cen- 
tury men of inferior or mediocre ability were generally 
appointed. A certain continuity in routine business and in 
more important matters was kept up by the permanent 
secretary of the board. In the first skty years after the 
board was organized there were only three changes in this im- 
portant office; the first appointee was succeeded in turn by 
his son and grandson, and the last of these four secretaries 
managed to hold his position for over twenty years. Of 
the presidents of the board before 1760, only one deserves 
an important place in American colonial history; this was 

George Dunk, Earl of Halifax, whose administration, be- Lord 

• • o 111- 1 1 Halifax, 

gmnmg m 1748, was marked by a serious and partly success- 
ful effort to improve the management of colonial business. 

As a "colonial office" the board was never satisfactory. Defects 
largely because it had little real authority. It could recom-;' system, 
mend policies but could not always secure their adoption^ 
and even when measures were approved by the govern^ 
ment no effective means were provided for their execution] . 
The board did not control the appointment or removal of 
colonial governors and often was not even consulted. Secre- 
taries of state instead of helping to secure colonial officials 
who would cooperate efficiently with the board often preferred 
to use such offices to reward personal or partisan services. 
Important branches of colonial business were handled by 



232 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 

entirely independent boards. The Admiralty was responsible 
for the naval defense of the colonies and of their commerce; 
decisions on questions of trade and revenue were made by 
the Commissioners of Customs and the Treasury Board. 
These boards often worked harmoniously enough, but bad 
organization caused delay and there was always danger of 
friction. It must be remembered also that the Board of 
Trade could not give itself up to colonial business. Much 
of its time was taken up with such topics as the improve- 
ment of British manufactures, the expansion of European 
trade, and the problems of poor relief. 
The English '^^^ development of the English judicial system during this 
system period had a certain influence on American history. The 

1 independence of the courts was one of the great issues fought 
1 out in the seventeenth century, and the Act of Settlement 
I (1701) protected the judges from interference by establish- 
f ing the principle of service during good behavior rather 
I than during the King's pleasure. The colonists believed 
that colonial judges should be similarly independent and 
were much aggrieved when the home government refused 
to make them so. The judicial authority exercised by the 
Privy Council in the Tudor and early Stuart periods was 
for the most part swept away, but a part of it survived, 
including the right to pass on appeals from colonial courts, 
the real decision being left to a committee. In one respect, 
the English courts had perhaps lost ground during the 
seventeenth century. Whatever right they might have had 
in earlier times to set aside acts of Parliament as uncon- 
stitutional was now clearly eliminated. The whole idea of 
a fundamental law binding even upon Parliament passed out 
of English jurisprudence. In the colonies, on the contrary, 
it gained ground and became one of the characteristic 
features of American political philosophy. 

No part of the governmental machinery just described 
was constructed primarily for colonial business. It was 



VARIED OVER-SEAS INTERESTS 233 

first and foremost the government of England, and (after Overseas 
1707) of Great Britain. Incidentally, however, not to say ^\'s^ide%f 
accidentally, it had to serve the purposes of government for Ajnerka. j 
an expanding empire overseas. Of this overseas empire, the 
American continental colonies were only a part and a far 
less important part than present-day Americans can easily 
realize. For a century England had been developing her \ 
commerce in Asia, chiefly through the great East India : 
Company, whose original charter was granted by Queen 
Elizabeth a few years before the founding of Virginia. This 
company had not as yet much territory; but it had many 
trading posts in India and monopoly rights in the China 
trade, and in the direction of these distant activities the 
company exercised many of the rights of a sovereign gov- 
ernment. Far away as these interests were from America, 
they have their place in American history. It was partly 
the desire of the British government to promote the trade ll 
of tlie East India Company which brought on the Boston:- 
Tea Party of 1773. More closely related to America were 
the trading stations of the African coast, where slaves were 
bought from native traders and shipped to America for the 
use of Spanish or English planters. In this trade, the Royal 
African Company took the lead for many years, though the 
larger part of the business finally went to independent trad- 
ers, including some Americans. Here and there along the 
African coast were British forts for the protection of trade, 
though there was no serious attempt to hold territory. 

The constitutional relations of the American colonies to Lack of an 
the home government were as varied as their climates and TOnsdtution. 
their economic resources. Even to-day, it can hardly be 
said that the British Empire has anything that can properly 
be called a constitution; certainly no really imperial consti- \ 
tution had been worked out in the colonial period of Amer- 
ican history. From some points of view, the colonies 
were a part of the British realm; in other respects they were 



234 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 

mere appendages of it. According to the charters and the 
opinions of the highest legal authorities, the rights of the 
colonists, except perhaps in conquered territory, were pro- 
tected by the common law and statutes declaratory of the 
common law which had been enacted when the colonies were 
founded, so far as these were applicable to colonial condi- 
tions. Later statutes did not take effect overseas unless 
that was definitely stated in the act. 
English and Englishmen and Americans differed widely about the 

points of relation between Parliament and the colonial legislatures, 
view. English lawyers generally regarded the American assem- 

blies as municipal corporations and their legislation as 
notliing more than municipal by-laws which Parliament 
could set aside as it saw fit. This theory may have been 
technically correct but it was almost certain in the end 
to provoke a conflict with the universal desire of the colo- 
nists for the largest possible measure of self-government. 
/Most American politicians regarded the colonial assembly 
las a miniature parliament, having within its own sphere 
/ an authority similar to that of the Parliament at West- 
; minster. For the present, however, these questions were 
not brought to a sharp issue, though the authority of Par- 
liament was at times exercised to a far-reaching extent 
and in ways which the colonists found more or less incon- 
venient, 
Colonkl Nearly everybody recognized the necessity of some one 

Parliament." authority to regulate the commercial relations of tlie Brit- 
ish Empire with the outside world, and of its various parts 
with each other. It was equally clear that the only authority 
available for this purpose was the British Parliament. In 
this matter of commercial pohcy the pioneer work had 
already been done and the main principles determined; but 
during the half century following the Revolution of 1688 
the system was considerably developed. The Navigation 
Act of 1696 remedied defects in administration which had 



COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION 



235 



.'been pointed out by English merchants and colonial offi- Navigation 

I , ii-il r • -rT- "Ct of i6g6. 

' cials. It also established a system of registration for Jbng- 
lish vessels, whether owned in England or in the colonies. 
In order to insure imperial control of the chartered colo- 
nies, all governors not directly appointed by tlae King had 
to be approved by him. This requirement was enforced 
in the proprietary provinces tliough it was in conflict with 
tlieir charters. In those colonies where the governors were 
elected annually, the rule was of course impracticable. 
All governors had to take oath to enforce the Navigation 
Acts; negligence in this respect made them liable to heavy 
fines and dismissal from office. Finally all colonial laws 
at variance with the acts of trade were declared null and 
void. 

Later statutes developed the commercial system in Later 
otlier ways, as, for instance, by extending the list of enumer- ^^e ^Molasses 
ated articles which could be shipped to Europe only through ^'^^ °^ ^'^^^^ 
English ports. Among the additions to this list were rice, 
molasses, naval stores, and ship timber; in certain cases 
I trees were reserved for the royal navy, though this reser- 
vation could not be strictly enforced. The most unpopu- 
jlar attempt by Parliament to regulate colonial commerce, 
Muring tliis period, was the Molasses Act of 1733. This 
I law attempted to break up one of the most profitable branches 
' of trade carried on by the continental colonies, namely, that 
of the foreign West Indies. During the preceding quarter 
century, the colonies from Maryland northward to New 
England discovered that the British West Indies could not 
give them as good bargains in sugar and molasses as the 
French and other foreign islands. The provisions, lumber, 
and horses of the continental colonies also demanded a 
larger market than the British islands could give. So the 
trade of the North American continent with the foreign islands 
grew steadily until the powerful West Indian lobby in Lon- 
don appealed to Parliament for the protection of their spe- 



236 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 

cial interests. In the face of protests from the continental 
colonies, Parliament imposed prohibitive duties on sugar 
and molasses imported into those colonies from the foreign 
West Indies. This act was, however, so directly in con- 
flict with the natural course of trade that it was generally 
disregarded. If strictly enforced it would have been dis- 
astrous to New England and the "bread colonies" of the 
middle region. Perhaps the chief interest of the Molasses 
Act is that it shows the peculiar importance of the sugar 
islands in the estimation of British statesmen. More than 
any other colonies, they lived up to the orthodox theory that 
a colony should devote itself to producmg staples for the 
mother country. 
Regulation English manufacturing interests were steadily growing, 

industry. and Under their influence Parliament watched closely any 
colonial industries which might possibly compete with 
them. In 1699 the manufacture of woolens in the colonies 
■ was discouraged by prohibiting their export from one colony 
)io another. In 1732 the London Company of Felt Mer- 
chants induced Parliament to limit the number of appren- 
tices who could be employed by colonial hat makers, 
sin the iron industry, the colonists were encouraged to ship 
iron ore; but a law of 1750 prohibited all but the more rudi- 
mentary forms of iron manufacture. Probably these restric- 
tions did no great harm in this early stage of American 
development, and it is only fair to remember that Parlia- 
ment was quite as ready to encourage some industries as 
to check others. The production of naval stores, for in- 
stance, was encouraged by bounties; and regulations which 
caused hardship were sometimes repealed or modified. 
This was done in the case of South Carolina rice, which, 
though placed on the list of "enumerated articles" in 1750, 
was subsequently taken off to the extent of allowing it to 
be shipped to southern Europe. 

From commerce and manufactures, Parliament ex- 



PARLIAMENT AND THE COLONIES 237 

, tended its control to colonial coinage, currency, and bank- Coinage, 
ing, on the ground that imperial, as well as local, interests andTanking. 
were involved, more particularly those of British merchants. 
The coinage act of 1707 enacted into law the provisions of 

j a previous royal proclamation, fixing the rates at which 
foreign coins should be accepted in terms of English money, 
thus estabhshing a uniform rule in place of the conflicting 
action of the various colonies. When English merchants 
complained of the inflation of the colonial currency by succes- 
sive issues of paper money, the home government first tried 
to remedy the evil by instructions to the governors and by 
disapproving colonial laws; later, Parliament took the matter 
up and in 1751 forbade the issue of paper money by the 
New England assemblies except under certain conditions. 
A few years earlier. Parliament legislated out of existence 
the so-called "land bank" of Massachusetts, a scheme for 
the issue of notes based on mortgages. Another measure 
passed at the suggestion of British merchants was the act 
of 1732 to facilitate the collection of debts due by Americans 
to British creditors. Parliament also promoted the interests 
of colonial commerce by establishing a general post oflice 
in America and passing a law for the suppression of piracy 
in American waters. 

i Parliament was, therefore, a real legislature for the Limits of 
whole empire. Yet there were some important things which mentary 
ParUament refrained from doing. Customs duties in Amer- ^s^^'^*"^"- 
[ica were left mainly to the colonial legislatures, which, un- 
ilike our present state legislatures, could levy duties on both 
I exports and imports. Now and then some zealous official 
in England or America proposed to raise a larger revenue 
in the colonies by means of parliamentary duties or a stamp 
tax, but the cautious Whig statesmanship of Walpole, New- 
castle, and their associates prevented any such action. 
/ The Post Office Act of 17 10 did indeed refer to the raising 
j of revenue, and some objection was made to it on that 



238 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Restrictions 
on colonial 
legislation. 
Royal in- 
structions. 



Disallowance 
of colonial 

statutes. 



account, but the colonists did not generally consider it as a 
revenue measure. Parliament was equally cautious about 
elaborate schemes for remodeling the colonial govern- 
ments. Though many influential officials favored the complete 
I elimination of the charters, and bills for this purpose were 
. repeatedly introduced, none was actually put through. 
Meantime the executive department of the British 
government was limiting considerably the lawmaking of 
the American assemblies. Royal instructions to the gover- 
nors guided them in the exercise of their veto power; pro- 
vincial laws were disallowed by the Privy Council, which also 
declared invalid colonial statutes held to be contrary to 
tlie principles of English law. The governor's instructions 
about legislation were numerous. He was forbidden, for 
example, to approve finally any laws which diminished the 
King's prerogative, made paper money a legal tender, dis- 
criminated in favor of colonial as against English shipping, 
or interfered with the importation of convicts and slaves. 
Some bills the governor was not allowed to approve at all; 
others he could pass only with a "suspending clause," pro- 
viding that they should not take effect until approved by 
the Crown. These instructions were not always obeyed, 
but on the whole they did seriously limit the freedom of the 
colonial assemblies and caused much discontent. 

A bill once signed by the governor, without a "sus- 
pending clause," became law; but a copy had to be sent 
to England, where it was examined by the Board of Trade, 
which, after getting advice from the law officers of tlie Crown 
or their own special counsel, prepared its recommendation 
I to the Privy Council, either for or against the law. In the 
latter case, the law was generally disallowed, or repealed; 
and this actually happened in hundreds of cases. In rec- 
ommending the disallowance of colonial laws the Board 
of Trade usually acted on carefully considered principles. 
Generally speaking, laws were repealed because they were 



CHECK ON COLONIAL LAWS 239 

not in harmony with the EngUsh law or with the royal pre- 
rogative, because they affected unfavorably the economic 
interests of the mother country, or because they conflicted 
with fundamental imperial policies in administration, A 
few examples will show how these principles were applied. 
Acts providing for triennial or biennial elections were re- 
jected because they took from the governor his freedom to 
summon and dissolve assemblies as he saw fit. Other laws 
were disallowed because they interfered with the King's 
revenue from quitrents, discriminated in favor of the ship- 
ping of a particular province, or authorized excessive issue 
of paper money. Often the action of the board seems quite 
reasonable, as when it condemned intolerant legislation 
against the Quakers, or prevented attempts by one colony 
to regulate trade without due regard to the interests of 
its neighbors. At other times, the board showed little ap- 
preciation of American conditions and so aroused a spirit 
of resentment, which was expressed later in several clauses 
of the Declaration of Independence. 

Closely connected with the disallowance of colonial laws judicial 
was the judicial action of the Privy Council while sitting the°Privy 
as a court of appeal in colonial cases. These appeals came Council, 
not only from the royal provinces but also from the char-: 
tered colonies, whose charters expressly declared that legis- 
lation must, so far as possible, be in harmony with English 
law. Colonial laws were sometimes set aside on the ground 
that they were in conflict with the laws of England and there- 
fore null and void. " In other words, the Privy Council 
was acting somewhat as the United States Supreme Court 
now does when a state law is declared unconstitutional. 

In the present system of the United States, the federal imperial 
government is not confined to the District of Columbia cSfes" ^^^ 
but operates through its agents in the individual states. 
In a similar way, the British imperial government was 
made up partly of ofiicials in London and partly of imperial 



240 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Royal 
governors. 



Colonial 
control of 
imperial 
agents. 



agents in the colonies. The comparison does not, however, 
hold good completely, because most of the colonial gov- 
ernors were themselves representatives of the central govern- 
ment rather than of the people whom they goverlied. 
By 1702 all the West Indian and continental colonies had 
royal governors except Connecticut, Rhode Island, Penn's 
colonies on the Delaware, and the Carolmas. During the 
next half century, the Baltimore family recovered its con- 
trol of Maryland; but this departure from imperial policy 
was offset by the transformation of the CaroUna proprietor- 
ship into the two royal provinces of North and South Caro- 
lina. When Nova Scotia was finally conquered it was 
at once made a royal province. In 1732 Georgia was given 
temporarily to a philanthropic corporation, the "Trustees," 
but with the definite understanding that after twenty-one 
years it was to come under the direct control of tlie Crown. 
In all these provincial governments, the governor was pri- 
marily an agent of the Crown ; the councilors also were royal 
officials, except in Massachusetts. Even proprietary gov- 
ernors had become imperial agents, since they had to be 
approved by the Crown and give security for the due per- 
formance of tlie duties imposed on them by Parliament. 

The presence of royal governors and councilors meant 
not only control of executive pohcies but also a check on 
lawmaking and the administration of justice. Every law 
passed by the representatives had to be approved by the 
councilors as well as by the governor. The judges were 
appointed by the King, either directly or through the gover- 
nor acting with the advice and consent of the council. Gov- 
ernor and council together also acted as a court of appeal 
in civil cases. Every one of these officials was ultimately 
dependent on the Crown for his continuance in office. 

Nevertheless, even officials appointed by the imperial 
government were influenced by public opinion in the prov- 
inces which they governed. .Most councilors and judges 



GOVERNORS AND ASSEMBLIES 24 1 

were permanent residents in their respective colonies and 
so bound by many ties of sympathy and interest with their 
neighbors. This was true also of some governors, and there 
were few even of the adventurer type who were quite in- 
different about popular approval. The acknowledged right 
of the assembly to grant or refuse money gave it another 
hold on the governor which he could not well shake off. t 
This was especially true when, as in a majority of the colo- '• 
nies, the governor's salary was granted only for a limited 
term of years, sometimes for one year only. Many a governor 
was puzzled to choose between the home government, 
the "master" who gave him his commission, and his sec- 
ond "master," the provincial assembly, which gave him 
his pay. Even the most conscientious governor might ; 
hesitate to oppose an assembly which controlled the appro- 
priations necessary for the ordinary conduct of government 
or for military defense. The result of all this pressure was 
that a good deal of executive authority was taken from the 
governor and transferred to ofi&cers and committees appointed 
by the assembly. The control of provincial funds, for in- 
stance, was often intrusted to treasurers named either by 
act of assembly or by the lower house alone. 

This weakening of the prerogative element in the pro- Special 
vincial governments emphasized the need of other impe- agitTdes. 
rial agents less affected by local interests. So in each colony 
there developed side by side two groups of officials, corre- 
sponding roughly to the state and federal officers of the pres- 
ent day. In Massachusetts, for instance, the governor had> 
certain responsibilities in connection with the Navigation 
Acts; but the home government depended primarily upon: 
a royal collector, appointed by the Commissioners of Customs 
in England and working under the supervision of an impe- k 
rial surveyor-general. Again, since provincial courts with j 
local juries could not be trusted to convict illegal traders, j 
imperial courts of admiralty were created to try such cases. 1 



242 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Difficulties 
of overseas 
administra- 
tion. 



Colonial 
agents. 



Imperial piracy courts were also organized to deal with a 
serious evil about which colonial opinion was sometimes 
very lax. 

It is hard to say how efficient this imperial machinery 
was as compared with corresponding agencies at tlie present 
time, because difficulties of communication were then in- 
conceivably greater. To-day a question may be sent by 
a subordinate officer to his chief several thousand miles 
away and an answer given in the course of a single day. 
Two hundred years ago, the British government had to 
wait several months for information about conditions in 
Virginia or Massachusetts. Before a decision could be sent 
to the colony, on the basis of tliis mformation, all the con- 
ditions might have been radically changed. Until 1755 
there was no regular mail service and no one could tell when 
letters would arrive at their destination. Besides the ordi- 
nary chances of wind and weather, there was always the pos- 
sibiUty of loss by shipwreck, enemy privateers, or pirates. 
Doubtless many officials were incompetent, lazy, or corrupt; 
but any fair judgment must take into account these physi- 
cal handicaps which no body of men, however efficient, 
could hope to overcome. It is on the whole remarkable that 
this colonial system of the eighteenth century should have 
worked as well as it did. 

While imperial interests in America were safeguarded by 
royal officials, the colonists also had their spokesmen in 
London. These colonial agents were generally appointed by 
formal acts of assembly, requiring the consent of the governor 
iand council, as well as the representatives; but in any case 
they usually reflected pubHc opinion in the colony. Though 
not entitled to a seat in Parliament, like the territorial dele- 
gates in the present American Congress, a colonial agent 
could, and frequently did, present the claims of his constit- 
uents in formal hearings before the Board of Trade. It 
was also his business to watch the proceedings in Parliament 



COLONIAL COMMERCE 643 

and use his influence against legislation which seemed likely 
to injure the interests of his colony. These agents were 
often surprisingly successful in their efforts to influence the 
action of the home government. It was in the work of a 
colonial agent that Benjamin FrankUn received some of 
his early training. 

The political ties which bound the colonists to the mother The com- 
country were certainly very important, but there were other ^pire° ^ ^ 
connections scarcely less significant which linked the Old 
World with the New. Especially far reaching was the 
influence of commerce. The closest economic relations of 
the colonies, other than those which tliey developed with 
each other, were naturally with England. First of all, it Colonial 
was from England that they received the greater part of with"^"^^^ 
their manufactured goods. This was not merely because England, 
tlie acts of trade required all European products, with few 
exceptions, to be shipped from English ports. It was largely 
the result of natural forces, — a common language, personal 
associations, the relatively high development of English 
manufactures, and the favorable situation of England as 
a base for transatlantic commerce. The development of 
domestic manufactures for the household and the local 
market was fairly general; but they would probably not 
have advanced very far in this period, even if there had 
been no restrictive acts of Parliament. Trade and agri- 
culture seemed to offer greater incentives for the investment 
of capital. 

Undoubtedly there was much smuggling, in America as 
elsewhere, and the products of continental Europe, such as 
dry goods and wines, were frequently brought in without 
entering them at English ports. European goods were also 
smuggled in from the foreign West Indies. We shall never 
know just how large this irregular trade was; but the bulk 
of the manufactures imported probably came from England 
in the regular way. 



-^ — ^#W-JH^' r 





245 



246 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Commerce 
of the 
plantation 
colonies. 



English 

merchants 

and 

American 

planters. 



Trade 

of the 

northern 

colonies. 

New 

England. 



In other respects the trade relations of the colonies 
^ varied widely. The southern and West Indian plantations 
j had the closest connections with England, to which they 
I sent their sugar and tobacco; the rice planters of South 
" Carolina had a somewhat wider range because they could 
ship directly to southern Europe. The fleets which carried 
'this commerce were large. In 1692, a British official state- 
ment showed that in less tlian six months 136 ships with 
more than 2000 seamen had entered English ports from Vir- 
ginia and Maryland. In 1706, in the midst of Queen Anne's 
War, Robert Quary, the royal surveyor-general of customs, 
wrote of a fleet from the tobacco plantations consisting of 
nearly three hundred sail. The plantation colonies were also 
largely dependent on English shipping; comparatively 
few of the ships which made up tlie great tobacco fleets 
were owned in Virginia and Maryland. 

Naturally the relations between the planters and the 
English merchants were very close. The London merchant 
[was the planter's selling agent for tobacco, and also his pur- 
chasing agent for English goods. Often tlie tobacco sold was 
not sufficient to pay for the purchases made and so to a 
llarge extent the planters were doing business on borrowed 
capital. Some English merchants dealt with the planters 
through "factors," or agents, in America, many of whom in 
the eighteenth century were Scotchmen. Sometimes EngUsh 
merchant families were represented in the colonies by younger 
sons, who if prosperous became members of the planter 
aristocracy. Naturally enough, the relations between debtor 
and creditor were not always pleasant. This friction probably 
had a good deal to do with the subsequent development of 
revolutionary sentiment, especially in the South. 

British commercial relations with the northern colonies, 
though important, were less close tlian with the South 
and the West Indies. New England had no staple exports 
to England at all comparable with West Indian sugar or 



FINANCIAI. RELATIONS 247 

Virginia tobacco. Her fish and lumber were marketed 
largely elsewhere, chiefly in the West Indies but also in other 
English colonies, in tlie Azores, and in southern Europe. 
From the American point of view the British government 
ought to have encouraged the trade with the foreign West 
Indies instead of trying to check it by the Molasses Act. 
It was through this trade, Americans said, that they were 
able to pay for English manufactures. The English authori- 
ties were, however, less impressed by this argument than 
by the smuggled European goods which came in through 
this "back door." Before, as well as after, the passage of 
the Molasses Act, sugar and molasses from the foreign West 
Indies continued to supply the distilleries of New England, 
whence rum was sent out for use in the Indian trade and in 
the purchase of African slaves. In this latter trade, Boston 
and especially Newport merchants competed with those of 
the mother country. In trade relations the middle region. The "bread 
with its grain, flour, and provisions, shipped largely to the '^°°'"^* 
West Indies, resembled New England more than the South, 
though there was a heavy export of furs to England, espe- 
cially from New York. New York and Pennsylvania, like 
Massachusetts, depended largely on the profits of the West 
India trade to settle their balances with English merchants. 
The financial relations of the colonies with England 
were somewhat like those developed in the nineteenth 
century between the western farmers and the "Wall Street" 
interests. In each case the new settlements naturally de- 
pended on the older communities for capital. The inevi- British 
table friction between debtor and creditor was complicated American 
by unbusinesslike methods and the ocean barrier, which made debtors, 
mutual understanding more difficult. In many respects 
the interests of British merchants coincided with those of 
the colonies; if the latter did not prosper, British trade would 
suffer. Yet on certain matters there was sharp difference 
of opinion, as, for instance, in the matter of paper money. 



248 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



The 

Anglican 
outlook 
on the 
colonies. 



Church es- 
tablishments. 



regarding which the American farmers of 1750 felt much as 
the Greenbackers and PopuHsts did in the next century. 
Americans also resented the British tendency to undervalue 
the northern colonies as against the West Indian plantations. 

While British statesmen and merchants were working 
for a politically unified and economically self-sufficient em- 
pire, some English churchmen hoped to accomplish a similar 
result in ecclesiastical organization. This idea of extending 
the Church of England was most nearly realized in Virginia 
and the West Indian plantations, where the Anglican system 
was recognized by law and supported by public taxation. 
Most of the continental colonies, however, were founded 
either by opponents of the Anglican Church, like the Catho- 
lic Baltimore family in Maryland, the Puritans of New Eng- 
land, and the Quakers in Pennsylvania; or, as in New Jersey 
and the Carolinas, by proprietors who, though Anglicans 
themselves, thought it good policy to attract dissenters 
by offering religious toleration. So a decided majority of 
the English in America were outside the AngUcan fold. 

At the end of the seventeenth century, vigorous efforts 
were made to strengthen the Anglican position. In New 
England, the Puritans were forced to give the Episcopal 
Church at least a bare toleration. In New York an act of 
assembly for the support of a Protestant ministry was so 
interpreted by the royal governors as to give the Anglican 
Church an establishment in certain counties. About the 
same time the overthrow of Lord Baltimore's government 
paved the way for an Anglican state church in Maryland. 
In the first years of the eighteenth century, with the back- 
ing of the proprietors, similar legislation was secured in the 
Carolinas, though it was not fully enforced in Soutli Caro- 
Ima and was almost a dead letter in the northern province. 
Elsewhere, also, ardent churchmen were hopeful that mucli 
could be done through the influence of the royal governors, 
who were definitely instructed to promote Anglican interests. 



THE ANGLICAN CHURCH 249 

The officer chiefly responsible for keeping up the connec- The Bishop 
tion between the Anghcan Church and its members in Amer- ° °° °^' 
ica was the Bishop of London, whose authority was definitely 
recognized in the instructions to the royal governors. With- 
out his certificate, no clergyman could regularly take a' 
position in the colonies. 

The exercise of episcopal jurisdiction over people three 
thousand miles away was of course difficult. The rite of 
confirmation, normally required for communion in the An- 
glican Church, could not be performed in America because 
no bishops were there to administer it. Similarly candidates 
for the ministry had to go to England for episcopal ordi- 
nation. Various abuses resulted from this absentee system. 
Many parishes refused to have ministers inducted in the 
regular way and preferred to "hire" them from year to year. 
The Bishop of London tried to overcome some of these diffi- 
culties by appointing commissaries, but they could not per- 
form the rites of confirmation and ordination and their 
influence was limited. The most logical method of dealing American 
with the problem, from the Anglican point of view, was to pj-oj^^ed. 
establish resident bishops in America, and during the last 
years of Queen Anne, it looked as if this plan might be 
adopted; but when the Queen died, the Whigs came into 
power and they decided that an American bishop might make 
trouble with the dissenters on both sides of the water, in- 
cluding some who were fakly influential. Though much 
could be said for the measure on religious grounds, the 
dissenters were afraid an American bishop might not be con- 
tent with promoting the spiritual welfare of his own flock. 

The most active promoters of an American episcopate Society for 
were the members of a new missionary organization, known the^Gospelf 
as the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 
often referred to m.ore briefly as the S.P.G., which was char- 
tered by William III in 1701. Its founders were leaders in 
rehgious and philanthropic work and its first head was 



250 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Other 

ecclesiastical 
relations. 



The 

American 
Quakers. 



Thomas Tenison, Archbishop of Canterbury; the Bishop of 
London was also an active member. Money was raised to 
send missionaries to America, and some pains were taken to 
select good men; but these efforts were not always success- 
ful and the church never gave the movement proper financial 
support. Though the S.P.G. missionaries strengthened con- 
siderably the influence of their church in New England, 
the middle colonies, and the Carolinas, they could not over- 
come tlie preponderance of the dissenting elements m those 
colonies. The comparative weakness of the Anglican Church 
at the close of the colonial era was unfortunate from the 
imperial point of view, for the Anghcan clergy were usually 
active supporters of the royal prerogative against political 
radicalism. 

In most of the other churches, the connection between 
the European and American organizations was much less 
close. The New England Congregationalists, for example, 
had no organic relation with the Independent or Congre- 
gational churches of the old country. Their ministers also, 
instead of bringing over the traditions of the English uni- 
versities, as the Anglican clergy did, were generally trained 
in the colonial colleges. There was some correspondence, 
however, between the Puritan clergy in America and their 
sympathizers in England. The tlieological writings of such 
men as Richard Baxter in England and the Mathers in Amer- 
ica were read on both sides of the Atlantic. Prominent 
English dissenters made gifts to Harvard College and were 
frequently helpful in staving off undesirable interference 
by the home government in New England affaks. 

For the American Quakers, the English connection was 
more important. For protection against the intolerance 
of their Puritan and Anglican neighbors they relied largely 
on their influential friends in England. The English organi- 
zation, represented chiefly in such matters by the London 
Yearly Meeting and the "Meeting for Sufferings," corre- 



NON-ENGLISH FACTORS 25 1 

sponded constantly with Friends in all the colonies from 
New England to the Carolinas and the West Indies, secur- 
ing information about their grievances and then taking up 
these complaints with the authorities in London. Contact 
between English and American Friends was also kept up 
by traveling missionaries, who made extended tours through 
the colonies. 

Meanwhile there was an increasing number of settlers Scotch and 
whose closest ecclesiastical associations were not with Eng- byterians!' 
land but with other European countries. The Presby- 
terians, who were comparatively weak in 1700 but increased 
rapidly in numbers and influence during the next half cen- 
tury, owed their inspiration to Scotland and Ireland. Their 
first notable leader was Francis Makemie, a native of Ire- 
land but of Scottish parentage and education, who made nu- 
merous preaching tours through the colonies. A few years 
later the great stream of Scotch-Irish immigration set in, 
bringing many Presbyterian clergy from Ulster, and a few 
directly from Scotland. These early ministers had been 
ordained by Scottish or Irish presbyteries, but before long 
they were organizing presbyteries of their own. Other de- 
nominations maintained more or less formal connections 
with the Protestants of continental Europe. The Dutch Other 
Reformed churches of New York continued long after the 
English conquest to receive ministers from the mother 
church of the Netherlands. There were also several Ger- 
man sects — Calvinists, Lutherans, Mennonites, Moravi- 
ans, and others, each representing some contribution of 
Old World thought and feeling to American life. The 
French had a number of Huguenot churches, but many of 
tlie French were drawn into the Church of England. 

The status of the Catholic Church was quite different The Catholic 
from that of any of the Protestant bodies. Except in the ,^^"^* 
early years of the Maryland colony, the immigration of • 
EngUsh Catholics was small. In the eighteenth century 



252 THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 

some Catholics came from Ireland, but this immigration 
was not large before the Revolutionary era. The Catho- 
lics were almost everywhere regarded with suspicion by 
tlieir Protestant neighbors and suffered from legal disabili- 
ties of one kind or another. This was true even in Mary- 
land, where their public worship was actually forbidden by 
law. Under these conditions, tlie Catholics could not build 
up a normal organization until after the Revolution, though a 
few churches were built, including one in Philadelphia 
where John Adams attended a service in 1774. 

Thus religion, as well as politics and commerce, estab- 
lished associations which counteracted somewhat the effects 
of physical separation and the American environment, and 
helped to keep these colonial communities in contact with 
the European world. It is worth remembering in this con- 
nection that the religious revival known as "The Great 
Awakening," the one movement of its kind, before the 
middle of the eighteenth century which affected the English 
colonies as a whole, owed much of its success to the visit- 
ing Enghsh preacher, George Whitefield, and to the evan- 
geUstic fervor of Presbyterian ministers who had recently 
come over from Ireland. 
Intellectual The educated, or reading, class was comparatively small 

on both sides of the Atlantic, but the influence of English 
literary and intellectual movements can be plainly seen 
in provincial America. Some of the royal governors were 
men of education and literary taste, who gathered about 
them other people of their own kind. Most of tlie Angli- 
can, and some of tlie Presbyterian, clergy had been trained 
in British universities and contributed largely to the devel- 
opment of education, especially in the southern and mid- 
dle colonies. There were many others, too, in aU the colo- 
nies who had spent more or less time in Europe. New Eng- 
land was probably more satisfied with its own intellectual 
resources than any other region in America, but some of 



relations. 



INTELLECTUAL RELATIONS 253 

its most representative men had seen a good deal of the 
Old World. In Massachusetts, for example, any list of 
outstanding personalities in 1702 should include Joseph 
Dudley, member of an old colonial family but just ap- 
pointed royal governor; Increase Mather, the ablest repre- 
sentative of the Puritan clergy; and Samuel Sewall, judge, 
councilor, and t3^ical Puritan layman. All these men 
had spent more or less time in England. Dudley had been 
abroad three times, once for nine years; he had served as 
deputy governor of the Isle of Wight and as a member of 
Parliament. Among his friends and correspondents was 
the famous English essayist, Richard Steele. Increase 
Matlier supplemented his course at Harvard by going to 
Trinity College, Dublin, where he took his M.A. degree, 
and later spent three years in London as colonial agent. 
Sewall's diary records a sk months' visit to England in 
which he showed himself a careful observer of men and 
manners. In the southern and middle colonies, educa- 
tional contact with the mother country was closer. In the 
South, the sending of sons or even daughters to England 
was fairly common, and associations thus formed in youth 
and early manhood were often kept up in later years. 

A number of Americans belonged to the Royal Society, The Royal 
or were among its correspondents, including such men as the'iiuis^of 
the Puritan minister. Cotton Mather; an eighteenth-century Court. 
Winthrop, who was a professor in Harvard College; Wil- 
liam Byrd, a rich Virginia planter and councilor; the physi- 
cian, John Lining, of South Carolina; and, last but not least, 
Benjamin Franklin. One striking feature of American life 
in tlie first half of the eighteenth century was the develop- 
ment of the legal profession, and a fair number of the lead- 
ing lawyers were trained in the English Inns of Court, 
from which they brought back not only a better knowl- 
edge of the common law but some understandmg of Old 
World thought and manners. 



254 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



English 
literature m 
America. 



European 
philosophy. 



The influence of contemporary English literature can 
be traced in various ways. The colonial newspapers of 
Boston, Philadelphia, WiUiamsburg, and Charleston show 
considerable interest in the work of such writers as Ad- 
dison and Pope. The Spectator essays of Addison and 
Steele furnished models for ambitious young writers in 
America and were reprinted in colonial papers. Pope was 
perhaps the most admired poet and received, like Ad- 
dison, the compliment of imitation. Mather Byles, a Bos- 
ton clergyman, was acclaimed by his admirers as one "who 
bids fair to rise and sing and rival Pope." In 1727 Byles 
sent some of his poems to Pope, "to let you see a little of 
the reputation you bear in these unknown climates." No 
one illustrates better than Franklin the effort of intel- 
ligent Americans to keep up with European thought. 
In his brother's newspaper office in Boston, he read Addison 
and dehberately formed his style on this model. Moving 
to Philadelphia, he became a bookseller as well as a journahst 
and politician, advertising in his paper. The Pennsylvania 
Gazette, the works of Dryden, Defoe, Swift, Addison, Steele, 
and Locke. A few years after his arrival in Philadelphia 
he established a Library Society, which offered its mem- 
bers not only books of the kind just mentioned but even 
such foreign classics as the works of Voltaire. 

By the middle of the eighteenth century some of the 
young men who were to become the pohtical leaders of 
independent America, had come under the influence of Euro- 
pean and especially English philosophy. The great idealist, 
Berkeley, visited Rhode Island and made an ardent disci- 
ple of young Samuel Johnson, a graduate of Yale, who after- 
wards became president of King's College (now Colum- 
bia). Johnson tried to popularize his master's teaching, 
but Berkeleian idealism did not make much headway with 
the matter-of-fact Americans of that generation. More 
widely read and influential with young men of a radical 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 255 

turn of mind were the principal rationalistic and deistic 
writers, and above all such political philosophers as Alger- 
non Sidney and John Locke. It was largely on books of 
this kind tliat Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Jef- 
ferson sharpened their wits for the controversies of the next 
epoch. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, Colonial Period, chs. VI-IX. Greene, Provincial General 
America, chs. III-VI, XI, XVII, XVIII and pp. 194-200. Beck- accounts. 
er. Beginnings of the American People, 137-160 and ch. V 
passim. Channing, United States, II, chs. VIII-XVII (for this 
chapter and the three following). 

Cambridge Modern History, VI, ch. II. Cross, England and Contempo- 
Greater Britain, chs. XXXVII-XL. Jenks, E., Parliamentary Sry^lS? 
England, chs. III-VI. Maitland, F. W., Constitutional History institutions. 
of England, Period IV. Robertson, C. G., England under the 
Hanoverians, 1-85. Cunningham, W., English Industry and Com- 
merce, Modern Times. 

Beer, G. L., Commercial Policy of England totvard the Colonies, Colonial 
chs. III-VII. Clarke, M. P., Board of Trade at Work {Am. Hist. ^Je^.^°^ 
Review, XVII, 17-43). Dickerson, O. M., American Colonial mental 
Government (most complete study of the Board of Trade). Eger- '■^^^'°°^- 
ton, H. E., Short History of British Colonial Policy (ed. 1909), 
bk. II, chs. IV, V. Greene, E. B., Provincial Governor, especially 
chs. VIII-X. Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, chs. II, III. 
Kellogg, L. P., American Colonial Charter (Am. Hist. Assoc, 
Report, 1903, 1S7-341). Root, W. T., Relations of Pennsyl- 
vania with the British Government, especially chs. I-VI. Pownal, T., 
Administration of the Colonies (by a liberal provincial governor). 

Andrews, Colonial Commerce (Am. Hist. Review, XX, 43-63). Colonial 
Bell, H. C, West India Trade (ibid., XXII, 272-287). DuBois, commerce. 
W. E. B., Suppression of the Slave Trade. PhilHps, U. B., American 
Negro Slavery, chs. I-III. Pitman, F. W., British West Indies, 
especially chs. IX-XII. 

Bogart, E. L., and Thompson, C. M., Readings in Economic 



256 



THE EMPIRE AND THE COLONIES 



Sources on 
colonial 
system 
and trade 
relations. 

Ecclesiastical 
relations. 



Intellectual 
relations. 



Social 

relations 

generally. 



History of the U. S., pp. 69-81 and ch. IV. Callender, G. S., 
Selections from Economic History of the U. S., chs. II, III. Hart 
Contemporaries, II, nos. 45-54, 65-68, 73-74. Macdonald, Select 
Charters, nos. 43, 50. 

Cross, A. L., Anglican Episcopate in the American Colonies, 
chs. I-IV. Greene, E. B., Anglican Outlook {Am. Hist. Review, 
XX, 64-85). Ford, H. J., Scotch-Irish in America, especially 
chs. XIII, XVI. Jones, R., Quakers in America, especially bk. V, 
ch. VIII. • 

Cambridge History of American Literature, 1, bk. I. Cook, 
E. C, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers. Tyler, M. C, 
American Literature, II. RUey, I. W., American Philosophy, The 
Early Schools, bks. II-III. 

Andrews, C. M., Colonial Folkways. 



CHAPTER Xn " 
PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 

Within tlie framework of the British Empire, each col- Colonial 
ony or group of colonies had its own peculiar problems, ^^^'■'°" ^^^' 
its special customs and points of view. In the provincial 
America of the eighteenth century, Nev/ England had a pecu- 
liarly clean-cut sectional individuality which was recognized 
by friends and enemies alike. Radical politicians found it 
convenient to use New England precedents, while royal gover- 
nors complained of the spread of "Boston principles" which 
threatened to undermine the foundations of imperial authority. 

In the last decade of the seventeenth century, the set- Settled area 
tied area of New England was only a small fraction of that England 
now occupied by this group of states. Vermont was still about 1690. 
virgin soil, and Maine, then a part of Massachusetts, was 
scarcely less so; only three of its towns were thought im- 
portant enough in 1694 to be listed for purposes of taxa- 
tion, and these were all on the coast within thirty miles of 
the New Hampshire line. For practical purposes, New 
Hampshire meant as yet little more than its short ocean 
frontage and a back country hardly twenty-five miles deep. 
The upper Merrimac valley was still in dispute between 
Massachusetts and New Hampshire and actually occupied 
by neither. From the Merrimac southward and westward 
around the coast, the colonists were stiU nearly all within 
fifty miles of the sea, though a slender line of settlement 
went up the Connecticut River across Massachusetts, grow- 
ing very thin at its northern end. Central Massachusetts, 
as well as the Berkshire country and the adjoining section 

257 



25S 



PROVINCL\L NEW ENGL.\ND 



Population. 



Growth 
checked 
by war. 



Small im- 
migration. 



of Connecticut, was still waiting for a new generation of 
New England pioneers. In 1695 the Massachusetts legis- 
lature mentioned eleven frontier towns as requiring special 
protection against the Indians. Three of these towns were 
in Maine and one in tlie Connecticut valley; the otliers 
were within fifty miles of Boston. 

The rough guesses available for this period indicate a 
population of about eighty thousand whites in the whole 
of New England — more than half of them in Massachu- 
setts. The regions which counted for most in population 
and wealtli were the district about Cape Ann, including 
Salem and Ipswich; the basin of Boston harbor; the shores ' 
of Narragansett Bay and Long Island Sound; and tlie lower 
end of the Connecticut valley. In Massachusetts, nearly half 
the province taxes were paid by towns within the present 
municipal and suburban area of Boston. 

For more than three decades after the outbreak of King 
William's War in 1689, the expansion of New England 
was seriously checked by border warfare. Even after 
the treaty of Utrecht, there were some destructive Indian ij 
raids, especially on the Maine frontier. During the next 
quarter century, conditions were more favorable; but 
Thomas Hutchinson, the governor and historian of Massa- 
chusetts, estimated at the close of the provincial period that 
the population of New England would have been larger by 
200,000 "if the French had been driven from Canada an 
hundred years ago." This was not the only reason for the 
comparatively modest growth of New England. To the 
farmer-immigrants of the eighteenth century, it offered no 
such agricultural opportunities as a colon}^ hke Pennsyl- 
vania. The exclusive spirit of New England Puritanism , 
also had some effect in discouraging immigration. For a 
time it seemed as if there might be a fairly large influx of: 
Scotch-Irish settlers, and several hundred of them did acta-, 
ally settle in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine; 



NEW ENGLAND EXPANSION 259 

but the great majority turned southward to Pennsylvania 
and beyond. To a larger extent than any other section, 
the New England of 1760 was inhabited by descendants of 
the first colonial generation. 

In spite of all these handicaps, the population of these Expansion 
four colonies had increased by 1760 to some point between England. 
400,000 and haK a million. Much of this increase was in 
the seaboard towns. Boston with about 20,000 inliabitants 
was still much the largest place in New England; but other 
towns also profited by the growth of seagoing commerce: 
Portsmouth, in New Hampshire; Salem, in Massachu- 
setts; Newport and later Providence in Rhode Island; New 
London and New Haven on the Connecticut side of Long 
Island Sound. Equally important was the movement of 
population toward new frontiers, westward, northward, and 
eastward. The descendants of the Puritan pioneers were 
now founding new communities, still largely on the old 
models, in tlie central counties of Massachusetts and beyond 
the Connecticut River in the Housatonic valley. Connect- 
icut and Massachusetts people predominated in this Berk- 
shire region, but they met here a few Dutch families from 
the Hudson valley. Land speculation helped to stimulate 
the pioneering movement. With the encouragement of 
their government, Boston and Salem capitalists began to 
invest in "wild lands," not only within the acknowledged 
hmits of Massachusetts but farther north in territory claimed 
by New Hampshire. Along with the old type of settlement 
by organized groups, there came a more individualistic 
kind of pioneering. The settled area of New Hampshire 
was now gradually pushed northward, especially in the 
Merrimac and Connecticut valleys. By the middle of the 
eighteenth century there were even a few outposts in what 
is now Vermont. In Maine, which had actually lost ground 
during the Indian wars, the advance was resumed, though 
progress was slow. 



2 6o 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



Maritime 
enterprise. 
Tlie 
fisheries. 



Shipbuilding. 



The pioneer spirit was not limited to the men who went 
in search of new lands. It was scarcely less evident in those 
who manned the fishing fleets, developed shipbuilding, and 
sailed on distant voyages. Like other New England inter- 
ests, the fisheries suffered severely from the colonial wars, 
as well as from French competition in time of peace; but 
the middle years of the eighteenth century brought a new 
prosperity. It v/as estimated in 173 1 that five or six tliou- 
sand men were employed in this industry. In 17 13, a 
Gloucester sea captain devised a new type of ship, the 
schooner, which gave the deep-sea fishermen more efficient 
service than anything they had had before. The mackerel 
fishery took on a new importance, especially for the West 
Indian trade, and whaling developed from small begin- 
nings into an immense and profitable industry. At first, 
whales were taken by comparatively small boats along the 
coast; but the European demand for illuminating oil, whale- 
bone, and other products of this fishery increased rapidly 
and the development of deep-sea whaling was a natural 
result. Many places shared in the profits of the business, 
but the Nantucket sea captains were conspicuously success- 
ful. Before long they and others of their kind were sailing 
as far north as Davis Strait on the Arctic Circle. 

Shipbuilding also made great progress — so much so 
that the first third of the eighteenth century has been called 
the "golden age" of this industry. It was carried on not 
only in a few centers but all along the coast. Ships were 
built largely for use by New Englanders; but they were also 
sold in other colonies, in England, and in the Mediterra- 
nean countries. By 1724 some British builders found this 
colonial competition so formidable that they tried to have 
it checked; but the imperial government was too thoroughly 
committed to the policy of encouraging English shipping 
on both sides of the Atlantic. The later development of 
the industry was less rapid; with the clearing of the forests 



NEW ENGLAND COMMERCE 261 

about the older settlements, lumbering and shipbuilding 
naturally moved northward and tiie shipyards of the Pis- 
cataqua region became more important. 

The shipbuilders were, of course, meeting the demands Trade, 
of an expanding commerce, and the Boston shipping lists 
indicate the character of this trade. During the summer 
quarter of 1714, 103 ships were cleared for various ports: 
sixty-one of these were owned in Boston and over two thirds 
of the whole number belonged to New England ports; ten be- 
longed to other continental colonies, four to the West Indies, 
one to Ireland, ten to London, and the rest to minor 
English ports. All but two of these ships had been built 
in America. There was much more variety in the ports to 
which they were bound: a little less than a third were going 
to continental English colonies, most of them south of the 
Potomac; another third, approximately, were bound for 
various ports of the British West Indies and Honduras 
(Barbados and Jamaica were the islands most frequently 
named); eight were bound for Newfoundland; eight sailed 
for the Dutch colonies of Surinam and Curasao; the rest 
were crossing the Atlantic, the majority to English ports, 
but a few to Portugal and the Portuguese islands. The ves- 
sels which embarked on these long voyages were nearly 
all very smaU. Less tlian one tenth had a tonnage of 100 
or over; the largest tonnage was 310 and the next only 
200. 

The cargoes were as varied as the ports of destination. Varied 
To the mother country, the New Englanders shipped partly ^^^^'^^^' 
their own products — staves, oil, whalebone; partly also 
the products of other colonies, such as rice and sugar. Lum- 
ber, fish, and horses bulked large in the cargoes shipped 
to the West Indies. The big items in the trade with the 
continental colonies were rum and "European goods," with 
a miscellany of such merchandise as wooden ware, pewter, 
iron pots, and frying pans. Lists of ships entering port 



262 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 

show what was coming into Boston from other parts of 
the world, either for New England consumption or for 
distribution elsewhere. In 1718, for instance, the lists 
showed European goods from England, including both Eng- 
lish manufactures and imports from the Continent; wine 
from the Azores and the Madeiras; grain, flour, and other 
provisions from the middle colonies; sugar, molasses, rum, 
and cotton from the West Indies. From Ireland came 
linen, some provisions, and servants. 

Newport. Next to Boston among the New England ports was 

Newport. In the early years of this period, it attracted 
the attention of royal officials as a favorite resort for pirates 
and privateers, the two employments tending to shade 
into each other. In time of war the privateer had a legal 
warrant for preying on commerce, and when peace came, 
such craft sometimes found ordinary trade too tame. In 

The slave the first half of the eighteenth century, Newport became 
the chief base in North America for the African slave trade. 
The round of this trade began with rum manufactured 
from West Indian molasses. Wliat followed may be illus- 
trated from the correspondence of some of these New- 
port merchants. In 1755, for instance, the firm of Wil- 
kinson and Ayrault sent Captain David Lindsay to the 
African coast, where he was to exchange his cargo for gold 
and slaves. With this human freight he was to sail for 
Barbados or St. Christopher, where the slaves were to be 
sold, provided he could get an average price of twenty- 
seven pounds for them all, "great and small." If satis- 
factory bargains could not be made at tlie first mentioned 
islands he could try Jamaica, The captain did this busi- 
ness on commission, getting among other things five slaves 
for his own share. A letter written from the Guinea coast 
several years earlier shows how lively the competition some- 
times was. The shipmaster reported to his Newport em- 
ployer that there never had been "so much Rum on the 



NEW ENGLAND MERCHANTS 263 

coast at one time before," but "slaves is very scarce," 
so much so that the "rum men" were "ready to devour 
one another." Newport was also, like Boston, deeply 
involved in the foreign sugar trade. 

The profits of this trade, legal and illegal, were building Typical 
up at Boston, Newport, Salem, and elsewhere a rich mer- merchants, 
chant class of decidedly cosmopolitan interests. A fairly' 
typical Boston merchant of this period was Thomas Amory. Amory. 
Bom in Ireland of English parents, he spent his childhood 
in South Carolina, where his father was a prominent mer- 
chant and politician. The boy was then sent to England 
for formal schooling and some practical business training 
from a French merchant in London. He then went to tlie 
Azores, and finally set up in business there for himself, 
incidentally serving as consul for the English, French, and 
Dutch. While still a young man, he moved to Boston, 
where he interested himself largely in the trade witli the 
Carolinas and the West Indies. Another prominent colo- 
nial merchant was Peter Faneuil. Born in New York of FaneuiL 
Huguenot stock, he went into business in Boston, becoming 
a shipowner, importer, and commission merchant, with cor- 
respondents in England, France, Portugal, and Spain. He 
believed in his right to "fair trade," even if it happened 
to be in violation of the Navigation Acts; there was also 
the slave trade, in which he had a considerable interest. He 
was public-spirited, however, and gave to his fellow citizens 
the famous Faneuil Hall. Such men as these inevitably 
changed the tone of Boston society, though tlie old families 
were still in the majority. 

The merchant group at Newport was more hetero- The New- 
geneous than that of Boston. Among its wealthy and ^'^ ^""""^ 
prominent families there were not only English but West 
Indians, Irish, Scotch, French (Huguenots), Germans, and 
Jews from Spain and Portugal. The Redwood family 
illustrates some interesting aspects of Newport society. 



264 PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 

Abraham Redwood, senior, was born in England; but he 
was interested in the West Indian trade and later became 
a sugar planter in Antigua, one of the Leeward Islands. 
About 1 715 he came to New England, settlmg first at Salem 
and then at Newport. When he died, in 1729, his son 
inherited not only his father's commercial interests but also 
his sugar plantation witli its numerous slaves. His corre- 
spondence shows the usual exchange of lumber, horses, and 
miscellaneous goods, chiefly for sugar; now and tlien negro 
servants are mentioned. His London agents, some of them 
influential in colonial politics as weU as in trade, sold his 
sugar and filled, or tried to fiU, his orders for various articles 
of use and luxury. He also showed some public spirit. 
The famous Redwood Library in Newport began witli a gift 
from him and a building site for it was given by another 
liberal citizen. 
New The intercolonial wars at the beginning of this period 

industry. Stimulated manufactures somewhat, too much so accord- 
ing to some overzealous ofiicials. Even the Woolens Act 
of 1699, intended to protect English manufactures, did 
not wholly discourage tliese New England enterprises. 
When peace came, however, most people there, as in other 
colonies, depended mainly upon England for the better 
grades of manufactured goods. The two manufactures of 
prime importance which got much beyond local markets 
were ships, with their accessories, and rum. Some indus- 
tries were encouraged by colonial assemblies; but most 
of the available capital found more attractive outlets in 
foreign and intercolonial trade. 
The These developing communities found tlie currency prob- 

problem. km a difiicult one. One reason why they were so sensi- 
morfey ^^^^ about the West Indian trade was because they de- 

pended on it so largely for Spanish money, the "pieces of 
eight," which they used in their own business and in settling 
accounts with the English merchants. Experiments with 



PAPER MONEY 265 

paper money were general during tlie provincial period. 
Sometimes, as in the case of the first Massachusetts issue 
of 1690, the policy was adopted to meet specially heavy 
war expenditures. Beginning in a fairly conservative way, 
successive assemblies became more and more reckless until 
in 1748 it took eleven or twelve Massachusetts shillings 
in paper to make one in English sterling. Rhode Island 
was even worse off. 

The evils of inflation were felt not only by British cred- Opposition 
itors but also by many of the New England merchants. In 
1749, this conservative party, taking advantage of a grant 
made to Massachusetts in compensation for its outlay in 
"King George's War," and in spite of opposition from the 
farmers and small traders, induced the General Court to 
redeem the paper in specie. In 1731, the governor of Rhode 
Island stretched his authority by attempting to veto a 
paper-money bill, but he was overruled and lost his place 
in the next election. One of his successors declared op- 
timistically that "if this colony be in any respect happy 
and flourishing, it is paper money and a right application 
of it that hath rendered us so"; but the situation finally be- 
came so serious that the leading business men of the colony 
signed a petition asking the home government to intervene. 
In 1751, Parliament restricted the issue of paper bills by the Parlia- 
New England governments; such bills were not to be made Sterv^tion 
a legal tender. This paper-money discussion brought out ^^^i- 
clearly the division of the colonists themselves on certain 
economic issues. The conservative merchant class, though 
none too scrupulous about obeying the acts of trade, some- 
times found in the home government a convenient protection 
against radical majorities. 

The growing wealth of the towns showed itself in more Wealth 
comfortable ways of living. Some of the best colonial ar- ways^or 
chitecture dates from the latter part of this period. Even ••ving. 
the better houses were still generally of wood, but some sub- 



266 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



Economic 
classes. 



Slavery. 



stantial brick houses were built, especially in Boston. Eng- 
lish models were followed to a considerable extent botli m 
private and public buildings. Furniture became more pre- 
tentious, and costume, imitating the English fashions, was 
often luxurious, as may be seen from contemporary por- 
traits of New England dignitaries. Governor Belcher, a Massa- 
chusetts man by birth, ordered from London a suit of "very 
good silk" "trimmed rich." Fashionable families expected 
to have their servants dressed in style. One runaway "Eng- 
lish manservant," described in the Boston Newsletter of 1742, 
wore a blue coat with black velvet buttons, a silk jacket, 
and "a line white shirt with ruffles." An Enghsh traveler 
wrote of Boston in 1740 that both* "ladies and gentlemen 
dress and appear as gay, in common, as courtiers in Eng- 
land on a coronation or birthday." 

Such luxuries were of course confined to a compara- 
tively small class, chiefly in the towns, though the "Narra- 
gansett planters" of Rliode Island had also a reputation for 
generous living. The owners of the older farms were strug- 
gling hard, with a soil none too good to begin with and 
now losing its fertility after a century of hard use. For 
the frontiersman, conditions were more hopeful, but luxu- 
ries were generally beyond his reach. In the towns, too, 
there were all grades of society — prosperous merchants 
and lawyers, small tradesmen, mechanics, and domestic 
servants. Indentured servants came in from England and Ire- 
land, though not in such numbers as in the colonies farther 
south. Prosperous families, especially in tlie larger towns, 
often had one or more negro slaves and there was no 
general feeling against the practice, though a few protests 
were heard. Rhode Island had the largest proportion of 
negroes and the Narragansett planters used slave labor 
more than any other part of rural New England. Gener- 
ally speaking, the small farmers of New England could 
not use negro slaves to much purpose. 



NEW ENGLAND POLITICS 267 

In their political problems, all the New England cole- New 
nies had some experiences in common. They all had to pdftks. 
adjust themselves more fully than before to the principle p°o{^™ 
of imperial control. Whether they kept their old charters or 
had to accept royal governors, they were all vitally concerned 
with such unpleasant phenomena as acts of trade, royal 
customs collectors, and occasional appeals from their courts 
to the Privy Council. To officials in London, New England 
seemed the bad child of the imperial family, keeping up 
irregular habits acquired in the earlier years of lax disci- 
pline and straying willfully from the course of legitimate com- 
merce, when there was a fair chance of not being caught. 
Meanwhile, New Englanders complained of unintelligent 
interference with the natural course of trade. Wliy should 
Parliament try to force their West Indian trade into the nar- 
row limits of the British sugar islands when better markets 
could be had elsewhere? Why, if their own representa- 
tives considered paper money a proper remedy for local 
troubles, should Privy Council and Parliament meddle with 
matters much better understood by people on the ground? 
Questions like these entered into all New England politics, 
from New Hampshire to Connecticut. All these colonies 
also carried over from the seventeenth century the essential 
framework of local government. Their town meetings con- 
tinued as before to manage those interests which came nearest 
to the average man, and they followed much the same old 
paths of law and custom. 

In other respects, the New England colonies did not seif- 
stand on an equal footing. In Connecticut and Rhode Is- government 
land, which kept their old charters, self-government was necticut and 
not limited to the towns. The property holders continued isi^d. 
to elect every year their own governors, assistants, and 
representatives in the assembly or lower house. Other execu- 
tive and judicial officers were appointed by the assembly. 
The governor had Httle formal authority; he could not, 



268 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



Attacks 
on the 
charters. 



Dummer's 
defense. 



for instance, veto bills passed by the colonial legislature. 
Nevertheless, these httle republics often showed remarkable 
steadiness in supporting leaders whom they trusted. Con- 
necticut, with its comparatively homogeneous and mainly 
rural population, had only two governors between 1707 
and 1 741. One was an influential Congregational minister; 
the other had been thoroughly tested as selectman, justice 
of the peace, representative, assistant, judge of the Superior 
Court, and deputy governor. Rhode Island society was 
more complex and its politics less steady, but even here one 
governor served continuously for twenty-eight years. This 
man, Samuel Cranston, had to steer the ship of state through 
troubled waters in the face of severe criticism by the 
home government; but he evidently satisfied his con- 
stituents better than most present-day politicians are able 
to do. 

The independence of these chartered colonies was re- 
peatedly threatened. In 1701, the Board of Trade drew a 
long indictment against the chartered colonies, giving special 
attention to Rhode Island, with its bad reputation for ille- 
gal trade and even piracy. The remedy proposed was an 
act of Parliament revoking the charters. Bills for this 
purpose were mtroduced more than once, and in 172 1 the 
board took the matter up again. In 1721 Jeremiah Dummer, 
the agent of Massachusetts, pubhshed a skillful defense of 
the New England charters against tlie usual charges of arbi- 
trary government, lack of interest in the national defense, 
and disregard of English law. He insisted that the New 
Englanders were not aiming at independence, that their 
prosperity depended on their free governments, and that a 
generous policy would also be best for the mother country. 
Doubtless, he said. Parliament had the "power" to re- 
voke the charters, but this was a question of "right." 
"And shall not the Supream Judicature of all the Nation do 
right?" Whether these particular argmnents were effective 



MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS 



269 



charter. 



or not, both Rhode Island and Connecticut weathered the 
storm and kept their charters. 

In Massachusetts and New Hampshire conditions were Massachu- 
quite different, since they both had royal governors. The the^secoad 
problem which the Massachusetts leaders, especially, now 
set themselves to solve was how far they could manage, 
within the forms of their monarchical constitution, to keep 
the substance of power. Even the second charter gave Massa- 
chusetts a decided advantage over the ordinary royal govern- 
ment. The members of the council, which was also the upper 
house of the legislature, had been suggested in the first place 
by the friends of the colony in London and were chosen there- 
after by the two houses of the legislature on a joint ballot. 
Since the lower house, chosen by the voters in tlie towns, 
was more numerous than the council, the former had a de- 
cided advantage in the choice of new councilors; the elec- 
tion was, however, subject to the governor's veto. The 
charter also deferred to the old traditions of the colony 
by requiring annual elections to the General Court, or leg- 
islature, and giving it the right to elect a number of ofiicers, 
including the province treasurer. 

Even in the appointment of royal governors, the Brit- 
ish government was often willing to consider local conditions. 
Sir William Phips, the first governor appointed under the 
new charter, was a native of the province who had been sug- 
gested by the provincial agents themselves. Then after 
a few years under the administration of a lieutenant governor 
who belonged to one of the old Massachusetts families, 
tlie province was put in charge of a prominent British noble- 
man of hberal principles, who was willing to denounce the 
Stuart kings as vigorously as any New Englander and 
even attended the Thursday lectures of the Puritan clergy. 
In 1702, Joseph Dudley, another Massachusetts man, was 
selected. Though extremely unpopular during the Andros 
regime, he was now able to secure testimonials from the 



The royal 
governors. 



270 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



Constitu- 
tional con- 
flicts. The 
salary 
question. 



Puritan clergy of London and even from such an influen- 
tial personage as Cotton Mather, minister of the Second 
Church of Boston. Dudley's first successor was an Eng- 
lish colonel whose grandfather was a Puritan minister; 
the second was the hberal son of a liberal bishop; the third 
was a wealthy Massachusetts merchant who had several 
times been elected councilor and at the time of his appoint- 
ment was the London agent of the House of Representatives; 
the fourth was a lawyer who had lived several years in Massa- 
chusetts and won public confidence to tlie extent of being 
appointed counsel for the province in a boundary dispute. 
In short, most, if not all, of these men took office with some- 
thing in their experience or point of view which should have 
helped them to understand local problems. 

The comparative care with which the Massachusetts 
governors were chosen did not save them from frequent 
conflicts with tlieir assemblies. This was due partly, 
no doubt, to the personal pecuHarities of individual gov- 
ernors, but chiefly to the fact that as agents of the Crown 
they were obliged to oppose policies which the popular lead- 
ers were equally determined to carry through. Perhaps the 
most significant of these issues was the question of tempo- 
rary or permanent appropriations for the governor's salary. 
The leaders in the House of Representatives were determined 
that, having lost the power to choose their own governor, 
they would keep him in check by determining his salary 
at short intervals. The controversy reached its climax in 
1728, when Governor William Burnet, actmg strictly in 
accordance with his instructions, refused to accept the tem- 
porary grant which the legislature was willing to make, 
insisting that only a permanent settlement was consistent 
with his dignity and independence. This independence 
was just what the popular party did not mean to give him, 
and he presently died without getting any salary at all. 
His successor brought with him equally positive instruc- 



GOVERNOR AND ASSEMBLY 271 

tions, but the assembly was stubborn. Finally the home 
government yielded and the governor was allowed to accept 
annual grants. Other governmental expenditures were 
similarly met by detailed appropriations from year to year, 
though the effort of the lower house to control the issue 
of warrants drawn under these appropriations was finally 
given up. 

The popular party was not always successful. Sue- Governor 
ceeding governors repeatedly exercised the right to veto councilors, 
the election of councilors. In this way radical leaders were 
kept out of the council, which was fairly conservative durmg 
most of the provincial era. The problem for the councilor 
who wanted to keep his place was how to be popular enough 
to win the votes of the representatives without being so 
aggressive as to offend the governor. The system naturally 
tended to keep men of vigorous and independent personality 
out of the council. Governor Dudley also asserted his right The 
to approve or disapprove the election of a speaker duly chosen questkm. '^ 
by the house. The claim was based partly on the old Eng- 
lish custom of presenting the speaker to the King for his 
approval, and partly on an interpretation of the charter, 
which gave the governor a veto on all acts of the General 
Court. The English practice had become a mere formality, 
both in England and in most of the royal provinces; but 
Dudley and his successor both used their veto, and the home 
government settled the point in their favor by the "explana- 
tory charter" of 1725. The assembly, being then afraid 
of more drastic action, submitted with as good grace as 
possible. 

Questions of military policy also made trouble between Control of 
the governor and the representatives. The governors were pJiicy^ 
instructed, for instance, to maintain a fort at Pemaquid 
on the Maine coast. To the assembly, however, this fort 
seemed too far beyond the existing' settlements to be of 
much value. The necessary appropriations were, therefore, 



272 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



New 

Hampshire 

politics. 



Party 
politics in 
Massachu- 
setts. 



refused. Later governors sometimes found that the only way 
to get money for military purposes was to leave much of 
the management in the hands of legislative committees. 
Thus, in spite of royal governors and imperial vetoes, the 
Massachusetts people did actually to a large extent control 
their own affairs. 

Some of the questions which disturbed New Hampshire 
politics were similar to those in Massachusetts. The smaller 
province was, however, at a disadvantage in not having 
a royal charter. For more than forty years it was unequally 
yoked with Massachusetts, whose governor was also the 
chief executive of New Hampshire and was suspected of 
neglecting the interests of the weaker colony. The actual 
administration in New Hampshire was generally in the hands 
of a lieutenant governor, more or less successfully directed 
by his superior in Boston. In 1741 this personal union of 
the two provinces was given up and a separate governor 
appointed for New Hampshire. 

The most permanent line of division in the Massachu- 
setts assembly was doubtless between the "friends of govern- 
ment" and the popular or "country" party; but during 
the middle years of the eighteenth century, the question 
of banks and paper money proved no less interesting 
than the governor's salary. To the average man it seemed 
an easy matter for the government to make money by the 
issue of paper bills, or to relieve debtors by forming a "land 
bank" which would lend notes on the security of real es- 
tate; but as business developed, the mercantile interests 
came to reaUze the damage done by an inflated and depreciat- 
ing currency. So when Governor Belcher set himself to 
fight the "land bank" he made hunseh unpopular with the 
majority of his fellow citizens, but still had the backing 
of many influential people. With this support he was able 
to secure action by Parliament, putting an end to this ill- 
considered enterprise. This same conservative group con- 



RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENTS 273 

tinued throughout the provincial era and later became the 
nucleus of the loyalist party in the Revolution. These men 
of "competent estates" had their own grievances against 
the home government, but they nevertheless depended on 
it for support against their radical neighbors. 

Religion still played a large part in New England hfe. Puritan 
Everywhere except in Rhode Island orthodox Puritanism tabHshinents, 
was the dominant influence and the church had the support 
of the state to a greater or less extent. When Massachusetts 
and New Hampshire became royal provinces, they found 
it necessary to tolerate Episcopalians and other dissenters; 
but, except in a large town like Boston, where there were 
several congregations, each supporting its own pastor, the in- 
habitants generally had to help pay the salaries of tlie Congre- 
gational ministers. Quakers, Episcopalians, and Baptists 
protested, but for many years without success. Similar 
conditions existed in Connecticut, where the old church order 
was even more strongly intrenched, with no royal governor 
to interfere. 

Nevertheless, many influences were at work to weaken the Weakening 
Puritan system. The growth of commerce increased the puritan 
indifferent element, which had always existed in the colony, tradition. 
Even before the old Massachusetts charter was revoked, 
representative clergymen were lamenting the decline of 
religious enthusiasm. In order to keep their hold on people 
who inherited Puritan traditions, but shrank from the severe 
personal tests required for full communion, the so-caUed 
Half -Way Covenant was adopted, permitting such persons 
to share in certain privileges, including the baptism of their 
children, by professing a kind of formal orthodoxy and 
"owning the covenant," without being examined as to their 
spiritual experience. So besides the large number of people 
who had no formal membership in the established churches, 
there were many "Half -Way" members who could not be 
counted on to fight vigorously for the old order. It must 



2 74 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



be remembered also that the qualification for voting was 
now property, rather than church membership. 
Salem While the Puritan clergy were trying to adjust them- 

^' ^ ^^^ ■ selves to the new provincial government, there occurred 
the strange tragedy of the Salem witchcraft, in which nine- 
teen men and women were hanged by authority of a special 
court on the charge that they had conspired with the devil 
to bewitch their neighbors. This was no new thing in the 
world. Thousands of supposed witches had been executed 
in England alone during the sixteenth and seventeenth cen- 
turies, and the belief in the reality of witchcraft was general 
among all kinds of orthodox Cliristians. The Massachusetts 
epidemic came, however, at a time when liberal-minded 
men were turning away from this particular kind of super- 
stition. Before long there was a sharp reaction and a few years 
later the provincial legislature voted a public fast in recog- 
nition of the wrong that had been done. Incidentally there 
was sharp criticism of the Puritan leaders who were held 
responsible for this outbreak of the mob spirit. Just how 
far the whole affair served to discredit the old regime is 
hard to say; but the discussion which followed seems to 
have made for more humane and liberal thinking. 
Conserva- By the end of the seventeenth century, there were some 

liberaiT The Spirited contcsts between conservative and liberal elements 
Mathers. ^ ^q Massachusetts churches. The conservatives were 
led by Increase Mather and his son Cotton, both ministers 
of die principal church in Boston. The older Mather 
was probably the ablest man in the province; his scholar- 
ship and his numerous services to church and state gave him 
a right to be heard with respect. His son was also a man 
of ability, but his learning though enormous was pedantic 
and uncritical, as may be seen in his extraordinary book called 
the Magnalia Christi, a series of essays on New England his- 
tory. Both men were steeped in the theocratic traditions 
of the Bay Colony, which they felt bound to preserve for 



LIBERAL ELEMENTS 275 

future generations. Their opponents would not have seemed 
especially liberal half a century later, but they proposed 
certain innovations which the Mathers regarded as dan- 
gerous. A church was organized to promote these ideas, 
and a few years later the "Uberals" got control of Har- 
vard College. 

To combat these and other undesirable tendencies, the John Wise on 
Mathers favored a closer organization of the local churches ^'^"'^'''^'^y- 
under sometliing like a Presbyterian constitution. There- 
upon a strong party in the colony attacked the new propos- 
als as contrary to Congregational principles and undemo- 
cratic. This view was ably set forth by John Wise, the same 
minister who had resisted Andros twenty years before. 
He argued for Congregationalism not only because it was 
believed to be Scriptural but because democracy was the 
kind of government which harmonized best with reason 
and "the light of nature." "Power," he said, "is originally 
in the people." No wonder that Wise's books were reprinted 
half a century later on the eve of the American Revolution. 
For the moment the Matliers were probably more influen- 
tial than Wise and their plan might have been adopted if 
Massachusetts had been free to settle such matters for 
herself. When, however, it was proposed to call a synod 
for the purpose of determining church policies, the British 
government refused its consent. 

In Connecticut the situation was quite different. There "Consoda- 
the Puritan leaders were in complete control and at the U^'^" ^^. , 

^ Loniiecticut. 

critical moment the governor himself happened to be a Con- 
gregational minister. So with church and state working 
harmoniously together a plan of "Consociation" similar 
to that advocated by the Mathers, was adopted. 

The same combination of local opposition with imperial Concessions 
intervention which had defeated the hopes of the Mathers, dissenters, 
finally brought the dissenters not only freedom of worship, 
but also relief from the payment of taxes to support the 



276 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



The "Great 
Awakening." 



Edwards and 
Whitefield. 



Congregational clergy. Neither the Quakers nor the Angli- 
cans were numerous in New England, though the latter 
were slowly gaining strength, partly through official encour- 
agement and partly through the efforts of tlie S.P.G. 
(page 249). Both, however, were constantly sending com- 
plaints to England, and the unpopularity of the Puritan 
colonies in official quarters helped these "conscientious 
objectors" to get a hearing. Under this double pressure, 
both Massachusetts and Connecticut passed laws providing 
that church taxes paid by dissenters might be given to 
ministers of their own kind. This was an important step 
toward the separation of church and state, but it took about 
a century more to complete the process. 

The outstanding event in the religious history of pro- 
vincial New England was the "Great Awakening," an ex- 
traordinary religious revival which affected all the English 
colonies on the continent. For New England, it began in 
1734 with the preaching of Jonathan Edwards in the little 
town of Northampton, Massachusetts. A few years later, 
his work was reenforced by the great Methodist preacher, 
George Wliitefield, who, tliough still a clergyman of the 
Church of England, showed little regard for the conventions 
of that church. Edwards, who has been generally recognized 
as one of the greatest minds America ever produced, was 
first of all a thinker, trying to restate the prevailing Calvin- 
istic theology in such a way as to combine the old tenets of 
divine sovereignty and predestination with a new emphasis 
on personal accountability and a more passionate zeal for 
communion with God. Highly intellectual as his preaching 
was, it had also an intensely emotional effect on his audi- 
ences. The less intellectual but more popular eloquence 
of Whitefield reached a still wider circle of hearers. Both 
tried to draw men from the surface aspects of traditional 
doctrine and formal observance to an inner spiritual expe- 
rience. As the revival proceeded, differences of opinioD 



RELIGION AND EDUCATION 277 

developed. The violence of some preachers, including White- 
field, provoked a sharp reaction. The faculties of Harvard 
and Yale protested and were supported by many ministers. 
Gradually the movement spent its force. Edwards was 
dismissed by his congregation and threw himself into mis- 
sionary work among the Indians, finding leisure, however, 
to do some of his most important writing. 

Aside from a certain lethargy which naturally followed Effects of 
this intense emotionalism, the Great Awakening brought Awakening. 
out two important tendencies in religious thought, both 
working against the old ecclesiastical system. One group 
of enthusiasts carried their dissatisfaction with the formal- 
ism of the established churches so far that they broke 
away from them altogether. These "New Lights" 
offered a fruitful field for such popular churches as the 
Baptists, especially in rural communities and frontier 
districts. The other movement had its greatest strength Beginnings 
in the more sophisticated society of the older towns, ^arianim 
It was intellectual rather than emotional and represented 
above all a sharp reaction against some of the main tenets 
of orthodox Calvinism, — original sin, predestination, and, 
finally, even the doctrine of the Trinity. The full conse- 
quences of this so-called "Arminian" teaching, which was 
much influenced by the writings of contemporary Eng- 
lish rationalists, were not realized until the Unitarian move- 
ment took shape after the Revolution. Long before that 
time, however, many churches in eastern Massachusetts 
had traveled far from the old Puritan orthodoxy. 

In education, New England made some progress during Education, 
its second century. Connecticut developed sufficiently to ^^^yate 
have a college of its own; Yale was founded in 1701, much 
to the satisfaction of the Mathers and their friends, who hoped 
it would offset the less orthodox tendencies developing at 
Harvard. There was one anxious moment when President 
Timothy Cutler announced his conversion to Anglican 



278 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



Literature. 



Provin- 
cialism. 



principles and carried a few followers with him; but he was 
promptly dismissed and precautions taken to prevent "Ar- 
minian and Prelatical Corruptions" in the future. With 
the help of generous benefactors among the EngUsh dissent- 
ers, Harvard was able to take some forward steps. Two 
professorships were established, one in divinity and one in 
natural philosophy, the latter held during this period by 
John Winthrop, a true scientist and a member of the Royal 
Society, Elementary education was not yet free in the 
present sense of that term, but fair opportunities for school- 
ing were offered under the Massachusetts and Connecticut 
laws. Rhode Island had several schools but as yet no public 
educational system. 

The atmosphere of provincial New England was not fa- 
vorable to art or literature. The writings of Cotton Mather, 
the leading author of his day, have little interest now except 
for the special student of history or literature. Jonathan 
Edwards, who belongs to the next generation, was an infin- 
itely greater man and some of his work has a distinctly poetic 
quality; but it is so involved in a subtle system of meta- 
physical theology that it can appeal only to a select few. 
Probably the most significant literary development of the 
time was the establishment of weekly newspapers, beginning 
with the Boston Newsletter of 1704. These publications 
offered opportunities for literary expression on otlier sub- 
jects besides theology and gave the younger generation some 
experience in political writing. 

The spiritual expansion of New England hardly kept 
pace with the growth of its population, the forward move- 
ment of its frontier, or the broadening scope of its commerce. 
In poUtics, the Puritan colonies knew how to think freely 
and vigorously; but their intellectual life was distinctly 
provincial. Rhode Island profited somewhat by its tradition 
of religious liberty and the two years' visit of Dean Berkeley, 
the great idealist philosopher, helped to stimulate intellectual 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 279 

interest, at least in a little group of choice spirits. On the 
eve of the Revolution Newport had perhaps tJie most liberal 

society in New England. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Winsor, America, V, 87-145. Palfrey, New England, IV, V General 
(comprehensive; too detailed for most readers). Fiske, J., New references. 
France and New England, chs. V, VI (fragmentary but suggestive). 
Selections from the sources in Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. Ill, 
and nos. 47, 48, 78-80, 84, 90-93, 95. 

Channing, United States, II, 282-294. Hutchinson, History Massachu- 
oj Massachusetts, II (partly contemporarjO- Kimball, E., Joseph setts politics. 
Dudley. Winsor, J., Memorial History of Boston, II, ch. II. Duni- 
way, C. A., Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts, chs. V-VII. 

Richman, I. B., Rhode Island, pt. II. Trumbull, B., Con- Other 
neclicut, 11. ^°'°'^'^'- 

Matthews, L. K., Expansion of New England, chs. Ill, IV. Expansion. 
Turner, F. J., Frontier in American History, chs. II, III (especially 
69-79). 

Weeden, New England, chs. IX-XV. Peabody, R. E., Mer- Economic 
chant Venturers of Old Salem. Interesting letters in Commerce of ^^^ opmen . 
Rhode Island (Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, LXIX). Morison, S. E., 
Maritime Hist, of Mass., chs. I, II. 

Andrews, Colonial Folkways. Lodge, H. C, English Colonies, Social life 
ch. XXII. Adams, C. F., Three Episodes, II. Winsor, Memorial ''^f:^^^^^^' 
History of Boston, II, chs. XV, XVI. Channing, Narragansett 
Planters [Johns Hopkins Studies, IV) . Kimball, G . S. , Providence in 
Colonial Times. Weeden, Early Rhode Isla^id, chs. VII, VIII. 

Channing, United States, II, 437-445, 455-462. Earle, A. M., Religious 
Sabbath in Puritan New England. Greene, M. L., Religious Liberty 
in Connecticut, chs. V-XI. Walker, G. L., Religious Life of New 
England, chs. II, III. Walker, W., Congregational Churches, 
chs. VI — \TII. Adams, B., Emancipation of Massachusetts, chs. 
VII-X, and Adams, C. F., Massachusetts, Historians and History, 
65-107, are sharply critical. 

Jernegan, M. W., articles on education in School Review, Culture. 
1915, 1918-1919. Channing, United Slates, II, 464-465, 469-472. 



28o 



PROVINCIAL NEW ENGLAND 



Typical New 
Englanders. 



Travels. 



Cook, E. C, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, chs. 
I, II. Tyler, M. C, American Literature, II, chs. XI-XIV. 
Wright, T. G., Literary Culture in Colonial New England. Weeks, 
L. H., and Bacon, E. M., Historical Digest of the Provincial Press, 
I (issues of the Boston Newsletter). 

Diary of Samuel Sewall (Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections; selec- 
tions in N. H. Chamberlain, Samuel Sewall). Walker, W., In- 
crease Mather (in Ten New England Leaders). Wendell, B., 
Cotton Mather. Allen, A. V. G., Jonathan Edwards. Diary of 
John Adams in Works, II. Letters of Governor Belcher (in Mass. 
Hist. Soc, Collections, Sixth Series, VI, VII). G. S. Kimball, Cor- 
respondence of Colonial Governors of EJtode Island; Talcott Papers 
(Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections, IV, V). 

Knight, S. K., Travels (1704; new edition, 1921; available in 
Stedman and Hutcliinson, Library of American Literature, II, 
248-264). Burnaby, A., Travels (1759-60; in various editions and 
in Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII). 



CHAPTER XIII 
EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 

After the reunion of the two Jerseys in 1701, there The middle 
were four provinces between New England and Maryland. ^ ^^g^^^^ 
New York and New Jersey were royal governments 
while Pennsylvania and Delaware were governed by 
William Penn. The population of these colonies was still 
very ^mall. In i68g, there were perhaps 40,000 in all, of 
whom about half were in New York. Leaving the polit- 
ical boundaries out of account for a moment, these early 
settlements fell mainly within two circles, each with a ra- 
dius of about fifty miles. One circle, with the southern 
tip of Manhattan as its center, included most of the inhab- 
itants of New York and East New Jersey. The other, 
similarly drawn from the junction of the Delaware and 
Schuylkill rivers, took in most of the settlers in Pennsyl- 
vania, West New Jersey, and Delaware. Outside of these 
two circles, centering about New York city and Philadel- 
phia respectively, the chief outposts were Albany on the 
Hudson, the eastern part of Long Island, which had much 
in common with New England, and a few settlements on 
Delaware Bay. 

During the first half of the eighteenth century, this Rapid 
section grew faster than any other, until in 1760 the total ^^P'"*"^'*^"- 
was about 400,000, ten times the figure for 1689, Penn- 
sylvania forged rapidly ahead of New York and now stood 
with Massachusetts and Vnginia as one of the three largest 
continental colonies. The two central regions about the cities 
of New York and Philadelphia still had a large proportion 

281 



282 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



Expansion 
of Penn- 
sylvania. 



Land 
policies. 



of the population, but the settled area had expanded rap- 
idly. In the north there was not much actual occupation 
above Albany, but a thin broken strip of settlements extended 
westward along the Mohawk. On the southern edge of this 
strip there were a few pioneers in the Schoharie valley and 
about the sources of the Susquehanna. South of the Cats- 
kills, prosperous farming communities were estabUshed some 
distance back from the Hudson and some settlements were 
made m the highlands of northern New Jersey. Even yet, 
however, there were considerable gaps between the settle- 
ments adjoining New York and those about Philadelphia. 

The expansion of the settled area was most important 
in Pennsylvania. From its original nucleus about the junc- 
tion of the Delaware and the Schuylkill, it moved north- 
ward up both these rivers and westward to the eastern 
slopes of the Appalachians and their intersecting valleys. 
Perhaps the most notable development was in the valleys 
of the lower Susquehanna and its tributaries. By 1750, 
there were well established towns in this country, of which 
Lancaster was the most important. Farther back were 
the pioneer farms of the Scotch-Irish and other recent immi- 
grants. The rapidly growing population of this soutliern 
border was politically within the limits of Pennsylvania, 
but it soon formed scarcely less important social and eco- 
nomic relations with the Mary landers of the upper Ches- 
apeake region. Beside the old New York and Philadelphia 
"spheres of influence," a tliird was gradually developed, 
without much regard to provincial boundaries, about the 
new port of Baltimore. 

The land policies of the provincial governments had 
much to do with the direction of this advance, checking 
it in some directions and stimulating it in others. The 
land systems of the middle provinces were, of course, rad- 
ically different from those of New England. From the Hud- 
son valley southward the landholder was everywhere a 



LAND ADMINISTRATION 283 

tenant, either of the Kmg or of some proprietor or group 
of proprietors, and tlie chief outward sign of this landlord- 
tenant relation was the quitrent. The amounts charged Quitrents. 
varied in the different provinces, and at different times 
in the same province; but though never large, tliey were 
difficult to collect and a continual cause of friction. The most 
serious disturbances of this kind occurred in eastern New 
Jersey between 1745 and 1755, when the riots amounted 
ahnost to civil war. On the borders of Pennsylvania, large 
numbers of squatters questioned the right of the proprietors 
to interfere with then: taking up wild lands as they saw fit. 
If cases were taken into the courts, juries were likely to 
side with delinquent tenants. So the trouble resulting was 
out of all proportion to the collections made. 

The quitrent problem existed in all these provinces. Problems 
but some features of land administration varied from one admiaistra- 
province to another. New York suffered most from the ti°"- 
concentration of land in a few hands. This evil began in 
the Dutch period, continued under the Duke of York, and 
was made worse by the lavish grants of the early royal 
governors. Four families controlled about two hundred 
square miles of the best land on Long Island; and in West- 
chester County, adjoming Manhattan, more than half the land 
belonged to sbc manorial estates. These conditions were not 
inviting to the immigrant who hoped to become a small 
freeholder and they help to explain why New York grew so 
slowly. In New Jersey the proprietors kept their rights as 
landlords after they gave up the government to the Crown, 
and were active in provincial politics. In East Jersey 
especially, the situation was complicated by the conflict- 
ing grants of earlier years and the New England traditions 
which the settlers brought with them from their old homes. 
In Pennsylvania, the Penn family were landlords as well 
as rulers and were frequently accused of thinking more of 
their property rights than of the welfare of the province. 



284 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 

Especiall}'- did the colonists object when the proprietors 
claimed that their reserved lands and quitrents should be 
exempt from taxation. On the whole, however, Penn's 
land policy was much more liberal than that of New York 
and especially favorable to purchasers of moderate freehold 
estates. This fact and his tolerant religious policy explain 
in large part the turning of immigration from New York 
to Pennsylvania. 
Diversity of In sharp Contrast to New England, the middle region 

elements. sliowed the same diversity of racial and religious elements 
which had characterized it from the beginning. Again, 
however, the developments in New York and Pennsylvania 
were quite different. In New York, the fusion of Dutch 
and English went on, with the Dutch language steadily 
losing ground, tliough in the middle of the eighteenth century 
it still predominated in certain localities, especially about 
Albany. Lawyers complained that in some counties it was 
hard to get men who knew enough English to serve on 
juries. The intermingling of racial elements was especially 
marked in the wealthy landowning and mercantile families. 
Dutch Schuylers and Van Rensselaers intermarried with 
English Morrises, Scotch Livingstons, and French De 
Lanceys, so that the leaders of New York politics and 
society were a decidedly mixed stock. Nevertheless, in the 
vital matters of language, law, and political institutions, 
the English strain prevailed. In Pennsylvania, large-scale 
immigration left the descendants of the seventeenth-century 
pioneers in a decided minority and increased materially the 
proportion of non-English people. Philadelphia was now 
the main gateway through which Europeans found their 
way to the opportunities of American life; and the two 
countries from which most of them came were Germany, 
with the German cantons of Switzerland, and Ireland. 

Perhaps no nation in modern times has been so se- 
verely tried as were the German people during the can- 



GERMAN EMIGRATION 285 

turv which began with the outbreak of the Thirty Years' Germany in 

the seven- 

War. That war was in itself one of the most destructive teenth and 
•in history. An appalling proportion of the population was centuries, 
swept away, — in battle, by the wanton cruelty of a brutal 
soldiery, by privation and disease. There was also wide- 
spread demoralization in agriculture, industry, and com- 
merce. Politically, the war almost completed the disruption 
of the old "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." 
On its ruins, a few states were expanding and developmg a 
separate national consciousness; but the greater part 
of Germany was divided into petty principalities, ex- 
ploited by petty despots, wasted by dynastic conflicts, and 
exposed to foreign invasion. Recovery from the effects 
of war was slow, and in western Germany, especially, the 
healing process was interrupted repeatedly during the next 
half century. A new generation had not come of age after the 
peace of Westphalia, before Louis XIV began the wars 
of conquest which continued with comparatively short in- 
tervals for nearly fifty years. In these wars the German 
states were often involved on opposite sides, considerable 
territory was taken from the old empire, and the western 
border was usually within the war zone. No region suffered 
more seriously in this way than the territory in the upper 
Rhine valley, known as the Palatinate, which was repeatedly 
invaded by the French armies. 

For most of the German emigrants, the principal motive Motives for 
was doubtless economic, the desire for a country where emigration, 
they could work on their own land, free from the burden- 
some dues imposed by feudal lords and petty princes, free 
also from constant wars and rumors of wars. The neigh- 
boring cantons of German Switzerland were saved from the 
worst of these experiences. Yet even in these little repub- 
lics there were feudal dues, services required by the lords, 
and tithes for the support of the state churches. Another 
serious grievance of the Swiss was the selling of their military 



286 



EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



English 
interest ia 
German 
cuionists. 



The great 
migration. 



service to foreign princes. Both in Germany and in 
Switzerland, economic motives were reenforced for many 
people by religious troubles. The treaty of Westphalia 
marked some advance in toleration; but Catholic and Prot- 
estant princes could still restrict seriously the religious 
freedom of their subjects, while neither Catholics nor Prot- 
estants could be counted on to respect the rights of the 
smaller dissenting groups. The Calvinists suffered from 
certain Catholic governments in Germany; but in some 
of the Swiss cantons which the Protestants controlled, dis- 
senting sects like the Mennonites were harshly treated, 
partly because they objected to military service. 

Political, economic, and religious discontent made a fertile 
soil for colonial promoters to work in; but Germany was 
too disorganized to have colonies of its own and so the dis- 
tressed and discontented had to look elsewhere. It happened 
at this particular time, that English economists and states- 
men felt the importance of increasing population. Prot- 
estant refugees from France, the Netherlands, and Germany 
had done much for English industry, and the hard-working 
peasantry of the Continent would make excellent material 
for the colonies. One result of this feeling was an act 
of Parliament passed in 1709 for the naturalization of 
foreign Protestants. Ever since Penn began to plan his 
colony the advantages of America as a home for German 
colonists had been persistently advertised, and in the 
early years of the eighteenth century many thousand peas- 
ants had come to think of America as a promised land of 
freedom, peace, and prosperity. 

It was not, however, until 1709, that emigration from 
Germany and Switzerland began on a large scale. In that 
year there was published a new edition of a book by Joshua 
Kocherthal, a German Protestant pastor, describing in glow- 
ing terms the advantages of Carolina and suggesting the 
possibility of assistance from the English government. It 



THE "PALATINES" 287 

happened also that the winter of 1 708-1 709 was unusu- 
ally severe and caused widespread distress. The result 
of all these things and of the activities of English agents 
was the exodus of many thousand Germans from the 
Palatinate and other parts of the Rhineland to England. 
Whatever the British government may have done to stim- 
ulate this movement, it was certainly perplexed by the 
enormous number of refugees whom it was expected to take 
care of. For several months they were encamped near London 
and generous private contributions were made for their 
support; the expenses of the government itself were also 
large. 

Obviously such conditions could not continue indefi- Palatinate 
nitely. Several hundred refugees who were Catholics and ^few York, 
therefore could not take the oath required of them by the 
new naturalization act, were sent back to Germany. Of 
the rest, many remained in England, some settled in Ire- 
land, a few hundred joined a group of Swiss emigrants to 
North Carolina; and especially notable are the three thou- 
sand refugees sent to New York in 17 10. Acting on the 
advice of Robert Hunter, the newly appointed governor 
of New York, it was decided to send these unfortunate 
people to that province and set them to making naval 
stores in the forests of the Hudson valley. Hunter doubt- 
less meant well but the affair was bungled and finally the 
project had to be given up. Meantime, the Germans un- 
dertook to buy land from the Indians without authority 
from the government and got into more difficulties in con- 
sequence. A few finally got satisfactory titles and formed 
the nucleus of a somewhat important German element in 
the Mohawk valley; but the chief effect of this episode 
was to convince the immigrants and their friends that New 
York was not the right place for them, A few years later 
a number of them made their way from the Mohawk valley 
to the upper Susquehanna and down that river into Berks 



288 



EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



German 

and Swiss 
migration 
to Penn- 
sylvania. 



Influence 
of the 
German 
element. 



County, Pennsylvania. Even this colony had its problems; 
but on the whole it proved much more congenial to the 
foreign colonists. So the main stream of German immi- 
gration for the next fifty years was diverted to Penn- 
sylvania. 

The same year, 1710, Vv^hich brought Hunter and the 
"Palatines" to New York, was marked by the beginning of 
an important settlement of Swiss Mennonites in the region 
about Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which soon became one of 
the chief centers of German and Swiss population. The 
annual average of German immigrants from 1727 to 1754 
inclusive seems to have been about 2000, the high point 
being reached in the last six years of this period. Some of 
them settled in New Jersey, and others, especially in the 
middle years of the century, moved southward into Mary- 
land and Virginia; but the largest number remained in 
Pennsylvania, where on the eve of the Revolution they 
formed about one third of the total population. With 
remarkable skill, the Germans picked the best farming lands 
in the limestone valleys, and they were not afraid to break 
away from the river courses to clear the forests of the back 
country. Many immigrants, however, were so poor that 
they had to get their transportation and support by 
selling their services for a term of years. These "redemp- 
tioners" suffered many hardships but many of them earned 
before long an honorable status as independent farmers. 

This "mass-immigration" of the Germans caused some 
anxiety. Provincial officials complained that "being ig- 
norant of our language and laws" they formed "a distinct 
people from his Majesty's subjects." Even so liberal a 
man as Benjamin Franklin feared that the Germans 
might be able to establish their language to the exclusion of 
the English. An effort was made to avert the danger 
by restricting immigration, but the proprietary governors 
usually opposed such legislation and it generally failed. 



EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND 289 

Meantime the Germans were establishing their own churches 
schools, printing presses, and newspapers, becoming more 
and more a factor to be reckoned with; though their for- 
eign language kept them for many years comparatively 
inactive in politics. 

Irish emigration also was the result of unfortunate Emigration 
conditions at home. Most of these early Irish emi- xh^lcotdi-' 
grants, however, came not from the Catholic population ^"sh. 
of the south and west, but from those northern counties 
of Ulster whose bitter opposition to "Home Rule" has 
done so much to complicate the Irish problem in the political 
struggles of recent years. In 17 18, when this emigration 
first became important, the Scottish colony in Ireland was 
about a century old. At the beginning of the seventeenth 
century, the English attitude toward Ireland was in some 
respects like that taken toward America. A large part of the 
native population, mainly Catholics, was to be dispossessed 
and the land turned over to the King 's Protestant subjects. 
Great tracts were granted to English promoters, much as 
Virginia and New England were then being given away to 
corporations of a similar kind. Of the actual colonists 
in Ulster, however, the great majority were Scottish rather 
than English. 

These "Scotch-Irish" had some trying experiences. Conditions 
There was constant friction both with the native Irish and "^ Ulster, 
with the EngUsh government. After the Revolution of 
1688 they supported the cause of William of Orange (Wil- 
liam III) and the Protestant succession, as against the 
Catholic Irish, who generally favored James II. The Orange- 
men were victorious but the struggle left behind a bitterness 
of feeling between them and their Cathohc neighbors which 
is stiU painfully evident. Nevertheless, the colony was 
now securely rooted. They were hard-working, thrifty 
farmers, and good business men; they also developed prom- 
ising woolen and linen manufactures. 



290 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



Economic 
grievances. 



Religious 
grievances. 



Unfortunately the British government of that period 
pursued a narrow policy which checked the prosperity of 
Ireland in general and of Ulster in particular. In order to 
check Irish competition in English, colonial, and foreign 
markets, restrictions were imposed on Irish exports, in- 
cluding live stock and woolen manufactures. The Woolens 
Act of 1699 applied to Ireland as well as to the colonies 
and practically destroyed that promising industry. In order 
to divert Irish interest from woolen manufactures, the gov- 
ernment promised to encourage the production of linen, 
which became an important Ulster industry; but even this 
trade suffered at times from discouraging regulations. Agra- 
rian troubles also caused unrest. There were unfortunate 
restrictions on tillage, and landlords were charged with 
raising rents unfairly. The Anglican Archbishop of Dublin 
declared in 1719 that these economic grievances were the 
chief reasons for the Irish emigration. "Your Parliament," 
he wrote a little earlier to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
"is destroying the little trade that is left us. These and 
other discouragements are driving away the few Protes- 
tants that are amongst us." 

Religious grievances were probably not the chief cause 
of ScotchTrish emigration, but they also had something 
to do with it. From their old homes, these people had 
brought with them the strenuous Protestant spirit of Scotch 
Presbyterianism, and they soon had a strong organization 
with an able and aggressive clergy, many of whom had been 
trained in the Scotch universities. The Presbyterians were, 
however, obliged to pay tithes for the support of the Church 
of Ireland, an Anglican organization which represented 
only a small minority of the Irish people. Some conces- 
sions were made to Protestant dissenters after the Revo- 
lution of 1688, but they were still at a serious disadvantage. 

Discouraged and exasperated by these experiences, many 
of the Ulster people began to look for new homes across 



SCOTCH -IRISH SETTLEMENTS 29I 

the sea. At first some were attracted to New England, Scotch-irish 
where they formed pioneer settlements in central Massa- England and 
chusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire. They did not New York, 
always mix well, however, with the New England variety 
of Puritanism, and after 1720 most of the Scotch-Irish 
went to other colonies. In New York they helped to de- 
velop the prosperous farming counties of Ulster and Orange, 
and on the eve of the Revolution there were also a few 
frontier settlements about the upper Susquehanna, just 
above the Pennsylvania line. 

Like the Germans, the Scotch-Irish found Pennsyl- Scotch-irish 
vania more attractive. Before 1720 comparatively few had sylv^a" 
gone to that province, but after that, their numbers rap- 
idly increased until they rivaled the Germans. In 1724, 
James Logan, secretary of the province, complained of the 
"bold and indigent strangers" from Ireland who had 
squatted on lands then in dispute between Pennsylvania 
and Maryland. When, in 1729, over five thousand of these 
people came in, Logan wrote in alarm: "It looks as if Ire- 
land is to send all its inliabitants hither." By the middle 
of the century the Irish pioneers had pushed well up the 
Delaware River, but their principal settlements during this 
period were in the Susquehanna valley, following its course 
northwesterly to the neighborhood of Harrisburg and then 
turning southwest across the river into the Cumberland 
valley. A little later they moved up the Juniata, one of 
the principal tributaries of the Susquehanna. Here on the 
edge of the wilderness the Scotch-Irish with the Germans 
were forming buffer communities, bearing the brunt of 
Indian attacks and taking views of their savage neighbors 
quite different from those held in the older settlements. 

Unlike the Germans, the Scotch-Irish had no serious Relations 
language barrier to isolate them from their neighbors. With ^vemment. 
some dialectic peculiarities, they were English speaking; 
nevertheless they proved on tlie whole more difficult for 



292 



EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



Labor in 
the middle 
colonies. 



Fanning. 
The "bread 
colonies." 



the provincial authorities to deal with than the Germans. 
When charged with occupying land without legal titles, 
they declared it was "against the laws of God and Nature, 
that so much land should be idle while so many Christians 
wanted it to labour on." With such people a land system 
by which settlers paid quitrents to absentee landlords was 
sure to make trouble. 

On the whole, the immigrants of this period in the four 
middle provinces were well adapted to the work required. 
A few had capital and capacity for organization but the 
great majority were indentured servants, free laborers, or 
workers on their own farms. The number of negro slaves 
was comparatively small, New York having the largest 
proportion. In the city of New York and on some of the 
large estates in that vicinity, they were numerous enough 
to cause some anxiety. The "negro plots" of 1712 and 1741 
were of slight importance in themselves but they produced 
a state of hysterical excitement even more tragic than the 
witchcraft panic in Massachusetts. In 1741, fourteen 
negroes were burned at the stake in New York and eight- 
een more were hanged; there were similar disturbances 
in New Jersey. In Pennsylvania the Quakers, in spite of 
some antislavery feeling among them, did not take a decided 
stand during this period and many of them owned slaves. 
Nevertheless, the evident need of intelligent white labor 
on the wheat farms combined with ethical motives to keep 
slavery down. There was a striking diflference in this 
respect between Pennsylvania and its nearest neighbor to 
the southward. 

The chief business of this whole middle section was 
farming. Here were the "bread colonies" of England's 
American empire, exporting wheat and flour in large quan- 
tities. New York had only begun to use her agricultural 
resources; but by the middle of the century, she was ship- 
ping flour at the rate of 80,000 barrels a year, the product 



AGRICULTURE AND TRADE 293 

of her own farms and those of northern New Jersey. The 
chief granary of the contment was Pennsylvania, where 
the Germans took the lead in intelligent farm management. 
Governor Pownall, who visited the German and Swiss 
settlements about Lancaster in 1754, found "some of the 
finest farms one can conceive, and in the highest state of 
culture. " Primitive log huts gradually gave way to more 
pretentious houses of brick and stone. Travelers were 
especially impressed by the immense stone barns of tlie more 
prosperous German farmers. Hardly less picturesque were 
the great wagons in which wheat, flour, and vegetables 
were carried to the Philadelphia market. Before long, 
however, some of tliese settlements began to find their 
best outlet across the Maryland line through Chesapeake 
Bay. 

For New York tlie fur trade was still a prime interest. The fur 
To hold it against French competition, the post of Oswego ^^^ ^' 
was founded on Lake Ontario and strenuous efforts were 
made with some success to establish direct connections 
with the western Indians. Under the influence of Gov- 
ernor Burnet and his advisers, the assembly tried to check 
the export of English goods to Canada, in the hope that 
the Indians, who preferred English goods, might be drawn 
away from the French. This legislation failed, hov/ever, 
because too many New Yorkers were interested in the trade 
with Canada. As the German and Scotch-Irish pioneers 
moved on to the frontiers of Pennsylvania, this colony also 
acquired an increasing interest in the western fur trade. 
The sturdy backwoodsmen, led by such famous guides as 
the German Conrad Weiser and the Irish George Croghan, 
dealt directly with the Indians, while Philadelphia merchants 
supplied capital and made large profits in the trade. 

Shipbuilding and ocean commerce were both growing shipbuilding 
interests. New York and Philadelphia, like Boston, found ^mmerc^ 
their most valuable market in the West Indies and were 



294 



EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



New York 
and Phila- 
delphia 
society. 



Manufac- 
tures. 



similarly annoyed by the Molasses Act. They also sent 
provisions and lumber to Spain, Portugal, and the Portu- 
guese islands. Philadelphia developed much faster than 
either New York or Boston and before the Revolution stood 
first among the cities of the Enghsh seaboard. In the Jer- 
seys some trade, legal and illegal, went on at Perth Amboy 
in the north and Burlington on the Delaware River; but 
as Governor Franklin said, just before the Revolution, New 
York and Philadelphia were "the commercial capitals of 
East and West New Jersey." Both in New York and in 
Philadelphia, society was dominated by rich merchant fam- 
ilies, — Dutch, French, Scotch, and English in the former; 
in the latter, the old Quaker families still held the lead. 
Both towns impressed foreign travelers as comfortable and 
prosperous. Before the Revolution, New Yorkers were 
building "spacious, genteel houses" of stone and brick, 
some of them four or five stories high. Philadelphia was 
more uniformly, not to say monotonously, built of brick. 
The English Burnaby and the Swedish Kalm both spoke 
of it with enthusiasm. The latter wrote of "its fine appear- 
ance, good regulations, agreeable situation, natural advan- 
tages, trade, riches, and power." 

In the history of colonial manufactures, Pennsylvania 
and New Jersey have an honorable place, partly because 
the foreign immigration, especially from Germany, brought 
many skilled workmen. In a wheat-growing region, milling 
was important and before the Revolution the best flour 
mills of this region were probably equal to any in Europe. 
Though the coal resources of Pennsylvania were practically 
unused for industrial purposes, the Delaware colonies were 
active in manufactures of iron, textiles, paper, and glass. 
Philadelphia had a remarkable variety of skilled mechanics. 
Two other Pennsylvania towns also were noted for their 
manufactures. At Germantown, according to the Swedish 
traveler Kalm, "most of the inhabitants are manufacturers, 



INTERCOLONIAL POLITICS 295 

and make almost everything in such quantity and per- 
fection, that, in a short time, this province will lack very 
little from England, its mother country." Lancaster, the 
largest inland town in the EngHsh colonies, was another 
considerable center for weavers and metal workers. The 
printing business was well developed both by the English 
and by the Germans. William Bradford and Benjamin 
Franklin were perhaps the most successful among the 
former; it was Franklin also who printed the first Ger- 
man book in America. Conspicuous among the Germans 
was Christopher Sauer, who established his press in 1738. 
Five years later he published his quarto edition of the Ger- 
man Bible. 

In the history of the middle provinces, economic and Politics, 
social evolution seems more important than politics. Most 
of the important political issues of the period are like those 
already noted in other royal and proprietary colonies. So 
far as local conditions produced issues of a more distinc- 
tive kind, tliey were usually characteristic of particular 
provinces rather than of the section as a whole. Expansion 
did, however, bring some problems of intercolonial poli- 
tics. Boundary questions, for instance, became more urgent Boundary 
as settlers moved mto the disputed regions. On the New versTes'. 
England border. New York's dispute with Connecticut was 
most easily disposed of; a similar one with Massachusetts 
dragged on through the whole of this period and the 
conflict with New Hampshire was just becoming serious 
on the eve of the Revolution. About the middle of the cen- 
tury, Connecticut tried to colonize the Wyoming country 
(part of the Susquehanna valley) in Pennsylvania on the 
strength of her sea-to-sea charter. There were also disputes 
between New York and New Jersey, decided just before 
the Revolution, and between New York and Pennsylvania, 
though in the latter case the slow progress of settlement 
prevented a really serious conflict. The most famous and 



296 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 

acrimonious of all the intercolonial boundary disputes was 
ended by the fixing of ''Mason and Dixon's line," in 1769, 
between Pennsylvania and Maryland. 
Intercolonial Some political connections cut across provincial bounda- 
connec lonb. ^.j^^ Prom 1702 to 1 738, New Jersey had to get on with 
a governor who was also responsible for New York and 
spent most of his time there. The New Jersey people natu- 
rally objected and in 1738 got a separate governor of their 
own. Several prominent politicians owned land or had busi- 
ness interests in more than one province. Some of the New 
Jersey councilors lived in New York or Philadelphia and one 
of them was for a time chief justice of New York. Quaker 
traditions affected politics on both sides of the Delaware 
and one New Jersey governor com.plained that his people 
were too much influenced by the Pennsylvanians. In the 
famous Zenger libel case, one of the best-known poli- 
ticians and lawyers of Pennsylvania was called in by the 
New Yorkers to defend the liberty of the press. 
Strategic im- New York continued to have a political importance out 
New^York. ^^ proportion to its population. Leaving out of account 
the detached trading stations of tlie Hudson's Bay Company, 
it was the chief base for the northern fur trade, and the north- 
western outpost of the British dominions. Within its sphere 
of influence was the most powerful of the Indian confedera- 
cies, on whose attitude depended to a large extent the out- 
come of the great Anglo-French struggle for supremacy in 
North America. As Governor Bellomont said in 1699, 
New York ''ought to be looked upon as the capital Province 
or the Cittadel to all the others; for secure but this and you 
secure all the English Colonies, not only against the French 
but also against any insurrections or rebellions against the 
Crown of England, if any such should happen, which God 
forbid." From this imperial point of view, the actual devel- 
opment of New York politics was disappointing. Though 
the New Yorkers were among the last to receive a repre- 



NEW YORK POLITICS 297 

sentative assembly, they were soon conspicuous for their 
encroachments on the King's prerogative and that of his 
governor. 

This fight for autonomy was carried on, during most of New York 
this period, not by or for the great body of the colonists, ^ ^"^' 
but in the interest of a privileged class. Excepting a few 
merchants and artisans in New York and Albany, who could 
vote as freemen of the corporation, the suffrage was limited 
to freeholders of land worth at least forty pounds. This 
excluded a majority of the adult male population. More- 
over, since any person having a life interest in his property 
was reckoned a freeholder for this purpose, many of the voters 
were tenants of the great landowners and more or less subject 
to their influence. Politics was, tlierefore, largely con- 
trolled by a few leading families. This aristocracy, however, 
had its factions, each striving to control the government 
for its own purposes. Succeeding governors usually played 
for the support of one or more of these factions ; the others 
tended to join the opposition. In all tliis there was not 
much real democratic feeling; but as time went on the 
opposition leaders tried to win popular support by laying 
more stress upon genuine constitutional principles and the 
rights of the common man. 

Here, as elsewhere, constitutional conflicts turned largely Constitu- 
on Uie control of the purse. The official theory was that, control 
while taxes had to be levied by the assembly, the govern- 
ment should be made stable by permanent grants for its 
support; that appropriations should be general, leaving 
specific expenditures to be determined by tlie governor and 
council; and that the assembly should have no further con- 
trol except the right of examining and criticizing the accounts. 
Before long, this view was challenged by the assembly, 
partly because of the misconduct of the early governors, 
especially the notorious misappropriation of public funds 
by Lord Cornbury, a cousin of Queen Anne and the degener- 



of the 
purse. 



298 



EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



ate grandson of the great Earl of Clarendon. Bit by 
bit, a policy was adopted which almost revolutionized the 
provincial government, shifting the center of gravity de- 
cidedly from the governor to the assembly. In spite of 
vigorous protests by successive governors and by the Board 
of Trade, appropriations, including the governor's salary, 
were made only for limited terms, first for five years, but 
finally only for one. The representatives also decided 
that the money raised by taxes should be kept by the pro- 
vincial treasurer, an officer of their own choosing who could 
be depended upon to carry out their policies. When the 
council, acting as an upper house, objected to these poli- 
cies, the house of representatives took a leaf out of the 
practice of the English House of Commons and denied the 
right of the council to amend money bills at all. 

In 1 751 the Board of Trade made an elaborate report 
on New York and called for drastic action; but the hard 
fact was that the assembly, having the right either to give 
or refuse money, could fbc its own conditions and the governor 
could not prevent it. The only remedy which might have 
been effective was the raising of revenue by act of Parlia- 
ment, and as early as 1711 this was actually proposed by 
Robert Hunter, perhaps the ablest of the New York gov- 
ernors. Similar suggestions were made later, but the home 
government shrank from such extreme action. Thus, in 
spite of its early "strong government" traditions, the 
merchants and landowners of New York were surprisingly 
successful in their fight for self-government. 

It has already been suggested that even the assembly 
did not adequately represent the people. A skillful governor 
could indeed so distribute his favors as to build up a party 
for himself among the representatives. To lessen this danger 
and keep the assembly in closer touch with public opinion, 
the assembly passed a law requiring triennial elections; 
but it was disallowed by the English Privy Council, which 



THE ZENGER CASE 299 

called it "a very high infringement upon the prerogative 
of the Crown." Under these circumstances, free discussion 
in the public press was essential if there was to be any real 
popular control of the government. Fortunately for New 
York, and for other colonies as well, this principle of a free 
press won a notable victory in the famous Zenger case of 

1735- 

Shortly before this time, the chief justice of New York The Zenger 
had been removed because Governor Cosby objected to his ^^^^' 
stand in a case in which the latter was personally interested. 
Sharp criticism of the governor naturally followed and some 
of it was printed in the New York Weekly Journal, published 
by a German immigrant named John Peter Zenger. The gov- 
ernor then caused the prosecution of Zenger for criminal 
libel. The new chief justice who presided at the trial showed 
a strong bias against the defendant, but Zenger's supporters 
were fortunate in securing the services of Andrew Hamil- 
ton, a leading lawyer and politician of Pennsylvania. 
By a skillful appeal to the jurymen he persuaded them to 
disregard the ruling of the court, which was that they had 
nothing to do but decide whether Zenger had, or had not, 
published the articles in question. This theory would have 
allowed the judges alone to decide whether the articles were 
really libelous; but Hamilton argued that the jury had a 
right to decide whether a publication was actually false, 
malicious, and so libelous. Moved by Hamilton's elo- 
quent plea for free public discussion, the jury acquitted 
Zenger and established a new landmark in the history of 
a free press. 

Pennsylvania, too, had its perennial conflicts between Pennsylva- 
governor and assembly, the former defending his own pre- Senfands"' 
rogative and the rights of his superiors in England, and the °^ ^\, 
latter representmg the desire of the ruling class among the 
colonists to manage their business with the least possible 
interference. Here also the assembly got the better in these 



300 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 

encounters. The Pennsylvanians had a certain advantage 
in Penn's liberal charter of 1701, which gave them annually 
elected assembhes. Before long, they went a step furdier 
and denied tlie governor's right to dissolve or prorogue tlie 
house. "We sit," said Speaker Andrew Hamilton in 1739, 
"upon our own adjournments, when we please, and as long 
as we thmk necessary." In using tlieir grip on the purse strings 
to extort political concessions, there was little to choose be- 
tween the "topping" Quakers and their northern neighbors. 
Governors were kept in hand by making their salaries a 
matter of annual or semiannual votes, and treasurers, chosen 
by the assembly and subject to its orders, kept tlie province 
funds. The governor's appointing power was also seriously 
curtailed in other ways. 
Conflicting In Certain other respects, Pennsylvania was quite differ- 

interests 

ent from New York. In the Quaker colony, politics was a 
triangular game, with King, proprietor, and colonists — all 
standing for special interests of their own. The governor 
had to think not only of the proprietor, who appointed him, 
and the assembly, without Avhose cooperation the public 
business would stop, but also of the British government, which 
expected him to enforce the acts of trade and raise funds 
for military purposes. The Penn famUy were responsible 
for the civil government and for the welfare of the people 
who lived under it; but they were also the principal land- 
owners, claiming quitrents from their tenants and holding 
on their own account great areas of improved and unimproved 
land. This comphcated relationship made trouble even in 
the lifetime of WUliam Penn, when proprietor and people 
had a common interest in tlie reahzation of Quaker ideals. 
There was still more trouble under his sons and grandsons, 
who gave up the Quaker faith and whose interests in the 
province were scarcely different from those of any other 
absentee landlord. 

For many years, the assembly refrained from taxing the 



PENNSYLVANIA POLITICS 30I 

proprietary estates or their quitrents; but during tlie last Taxiag 
French wars, tax bills were held up because the assembly proprietary 
insisted on what the proprietors considered unfair charges estates, 
upon their estates. With the home government urging 
appropriations for defense and the assembly determined not 
to give them without the obnoxious taxes, the governor 
was in a hard place. Finally the assembly practically bribed 
him into a violation of his instructions. The irritation caused 
by these controversies was so great that in 1764 a strong 
party, with Benjamin Franklin as one of its principal leaders, 
tried to have the proprietary government overthrown and 
a royal government established, though this project was 
finally given up. 

As a Quaker colony, Pennsylvania found it hard to adjust Pennsylva- 
its institutions and ideals to the demands of the home gov- English 
ernment. This was especially serious because, under the government. 
royal charter, the province was more closely controlled by 
the home government than were the other proprietary colo- 
nies. Its laws had to be sent to England for approval and 
the whole experiment was jealously watched by unfriendly 
critics on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of the early laws 
were disallowed by the home government on tlie ground that 
they were contrary to the laws of England. Penn was so 
much harassed by these complaints, as well as by the appar- 
ently ungrateful attitude of his own people, tliat he came 
near giving up his government altogether. 

Among the controversies which arose between Pennsyl- The ques- 
vania and the British government, two were closel}' connected judicial 
with the peculiar teaching of the Society of Friends. One °^^^- 
was the question of oaths, and the other that of military 
service. On the first question, the Quakers stood for a law 
allowing in all cases the substitution of a solemn affirmation 
in place of an oatli. To secure this privilege for themiselves 
in their own colony seemed reasonable enough; even the 
British Parliament allowed Quakers in certain cases to affirm 



302 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



instead of swearing. In England, however, oaths were re- 
quired of all jurymen, witnesses in criminal cases, and officials 
generally. The early Pennsylvania practice naturally went 
farther and allowed affirmations in all cases. It also failed 
to provide adequately for administering oaths to persons 
who preferred to use that form. So one provincial law 
after another was passed only to be disallowed by the home 
government. The long deadlock was ended by two acts of 
the Pennsylvania assembly, one in 1718, and one in 1724, 
both approved by the King; taken together they extended 
to Pennsylvania a considerable part of the English penal 
code, but relieved the Quakers from the obligation of taking 
oaths. Since, however, judges were obliged to administer 
the oath to any person who desired it, a strict Quaker could 
hardly hold that office. 

The question of military service caused even more trouble. 
Though some Quakers were less strict than others, most of 
them agreed that a Friend should not bear arms himself 
and tliat a Quaker legislator should not vote for strictly mili- 
tary appropriations. Since the assembly was generally 
controlled by the Quakers, such appropriations were fre- 
quently refused. Some of the Quakers, however, real- 
ized the difficulty of the situation and grants were some- 
times made in such terms that they could be used, directly 
or indirectly, for military purposes, as for instance for the 
relief of friendly Indians or "for the Queen's use." During 
the period of peace between 1713 and 1739, this issue fell 
The problem into the background; but when the Anglo-Spanish war 
1739-1763'. broke out, in 1739, followed shortly afterwards by war with 
France, Pennsylvania was naturally asked to do her part 
in the common defense. Meantime, the relations of the Penn- 
sylvanians with their Indian neighbors had changed de- 
cidedly for the worse. Unfair practices of unscrupulous 
officials weakened the old friendly feeling and few of the 
new frontiersmen had any sympathy with Quaker ideas; 



The ques- 
tion of 
military 
service. 



POLITICS AND RELIGION 303 

the Scotch-Irish were especially pugnacious. So the Quakers 
were in a trying position. They were still unwilling to vote 
for miUtia laws and mihtary appropriations, but they were 
under severe pressure both from the British government 
and from their own frontier settlers. They finally found 
a way out of this dilemma by giving up enough seats in the 
assembly to relieve themselves temporarily of the responsi- 
bility for carrying on the government. 

Until the crisis of the French War, the old Quaker fami- Quaker 
lies were fairly successful in their control of provincial poll- ^n*tics.'° 
tics. This was true long after they had lost their numerical 
majority, because they got on fairly well with the earlier 
German immigrants, who, being unfamiliar with the Eng- 
lish language and English political methods, were willing 
to leave the government in the hands of the old ruling class. 
With the Scotch-Irish and many of the German frontiersmen 
the case was quite different. As against the conservatism 
of the seaboard there gradually developed an aggressive 
frontier democracy, which demanded more energetic meas- 
ures for defense. It also denounced the political system 
which kept down the representation of the western counties 
and enabled a minority in the older settlements to control 
the policies of the province. 

Perhaps the most striking characteristic of society in Religion in 
the middle provinces was the way in which men of different coLnks; ^ 
religious traditions were learning to live together. Except tolerauon. 
in New York, no serious efforts were made to establish any 
one church, and even there the attempt failed almost com- 
pletely. Though the New York law of 1693 providing for 
the support of a Protestant clergy was for a time used by 
Anglican governors to give their church a privileged posi- 
tion, this policy had to be given up because the great ma- 
jority of the inhabitants belonged to other churches. Popu- 
lar prejudice against the Catholics led to some harsh 
legislation against them in New York. The instructions 



304 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



Anglican 
Church. 



Develop- 
ments 
among the 
Quakers. 



to the royal governors requiring them to respect liberty 
of conscience made an exception of "papists," who were 
excluded from office even in Pennsylvania. In the latter 
colony, however, Catholic worship was not interfered with 
and mass was publicly celebrated in Philadelphia. In New 
York the Jews had a regular place for public worship. 
WiUiam Smith, the contemporary historian of New York, 
though speaking of his own province, probably expressed 
the prevailing opinion m tliis whole section when he said 
that the "body of the people" were "for an equal, universal 
toleration of Protestants, and averse to any kind of 
ecclesiastical establishment." 

Of the principal religious groups in the middle colonies, 
the Anglicans were more conspicuous for their prestige and 
political influence than for their numbers. Tiirough the work 
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel and the active 
support of some royal oflicials, this church made substantial 
progress and there were fairly strong parishes in Philadel- 
phia, Burlington, and New York. Because of tlie close re- 
lation between the Anglican clergy and tlie oflice-holding 
group, the other denominations were always afraid that 
the Church of England might gain some unfair advantage. 

The Quakers held their ground fairly well in Pennsyl- 
vania and West New Jersey, though at the beginning of this 
period tliey suffered from the propaganda of a former Friend, 
George Keith, who first formed a group of his own called 
the "Keithian" Quakers and then led some of his followers 
into the Anglican Church. Within the Society, there were 
differences of opinion between those who emphasized the 
mystical aspects of Quaker teaching and those who were more 
rationalistic and practical. Many of the younger generation 
lacked the enthusiasm of the founders; but the Society was 
fairly consistent in upholding Quaker principles in the matter 
of oaths and military service. The Quakers also came to 
take a more definite antislavery position, though there 



LUTHERANS AND C.ALVINISTS 305 

were a number of slaveowners among them. In 1758 tlie 
Yearly Meeting resolved that Friends should set their slaves 
"at liberty, making a Christian provision for them"; and 
a committee was appointed to confer with slave-owning 
members. 

The Germans and Swiss brought a great variety of German 
religious denominations. The Lutherans and the Calvinists churdies!^ 
were the most numerous; but the smaller sects, being more 
picturesque, have attracted more attention. Some of them 
were strongly mystical and formed communities in which 
they withdrew from the distractions of the world to lead 
a strictly religious Ufe. Conspicuous among the minor groups 
were the peace-loving Mennonites and Moravians; the latter 
were especially devoted missionaries to the Indians. There The 
were Lutherans on the Delaware even before Penn's time "'^ ^'"^°^' 
and their numbers grew rapidly with the German migration 
of the eighteenth century. At first they had no efficient 
organization, but in 1741 they found an able leader in the 
person of Heinrich Muhlenberg. He came to Pennsylvania 
from Halle, in Saxony, and he represented the pietistic 
element in the Lutheran Church, which was trying to get 
below formalities to a deeper spiritual life. In 1748 was 
organized at Philadelphia the first American synod of the 
Lutheran Church. Similar work was done for the German 
Reformed churches by another able man, tlie Rev. Michael 
Schlatter. 

Taking tlie middle colonies as a whole, the most important The Cal- 
religious element was probably the group of denominations churches, 
which accepted the teaching of John Calvin. This group J^rianJsm 
included the Dutch Reformed Church of New Netherland 
and New York, which still kept up some connection with 
the established church of Holland; the Puritan emigrants 
from New England, cliiefiy m New York and New Jersey; 
the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians; and the German Reformed 
churches. Before long many of the English-speaking Cal- 



education. 



306 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 

vinists came together in a new Presbyterian organization. 
The first American presbytery was organized at Philadel- 
phia in i'7o6, by the Scotch-Irish preacher, Francis Makemie, 
and the church grew rapidly after the Scotch-Irish migration 
set in. The Great Awakening was responsible for some dis- 
sensions among the Presbyterians; but they furnished some 
of its principal leaders and were on the whole stimulated 
by it. Presbyterianism was also reenforced by some Dutch 
Calvinists who had become accustomed to the English 
language. By 1758, the various presbyteries were united 
in the synod of New York and Philadelphia, and on the 
eve of the Revolution this church was a powerful factor 
in politics as well as in religion. Unlike the Anglicans and 
the peace-loving Quakers, the Presbyterians inclined toward 
a somewhat aggressive democracy. 
Problems of In an age when religion and education were closely asso- 

ciated, the heterogeneous population of the middle provinces 
naturally found it difficult to establish efficient public-school 
systems. In New York a small beginning was made by 
the Dutch; but after the English conquest, the two races 
failed to get together on any effective program of public edu- 
cation, and a contemporary writer says that the New York 
schools were "in the lowest order." One of the early Penn- 
sylvania laws required parents to see that their children 
learned to read and write, and were taught "some useful 
trade or skill." For the most part, the responsibility for 
education was assumed by families, religious societies, and 
other private organizations. The Anglican missionary work 
included the maintenance of church schools, and the Quakers, 
while neglecting higher education, founded a number of ele- 
mentary and secondary schools. The various German sects 
were also active and they had some highly educated men 
among their clergy. An Anglican churchman wrote in 
1763 that they seemed to be "abundantly well provided in 
teachers of one kind or another." The Presbyterian minis- 



INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS 307 

ters also emphasized general education as well as theological 
training. 

Higher education naturally came much later here than Colleges, 
in New England, but about the middle of the century three "'^'^^^°°' 
colleges were founded. The College of New Jersey, now 
Princeton University, was chartered in 1746 and graduated 
its first class in 1748. Its chief promoters were Presbyterian 
clergy of Irish, Scotch, or New England stock, and like the 
other Puritan colleges, it laid special stress on the training 
of ministers. Princeton became more and more the chief 
intellectual center of the Scotch-Irish population in the middle 
region and in the South. Some prominent New Yorkers 
were trained at Yale; but in 1754, King's College was char- King's 
tered in the city of New York. The dominant influence ° ^^^' 
in this college was Anglican, with some representation of 
other elements in the governing board. Its first presi- 
dent was that energetic Anglican churchman and writer, 
Samuel Johnson. A little earlier, Benjamin Franklin and university 

a few other liberal-minded citizens founded the "Academy" of Penii- 

^ sylvama. 

in Philadelphia, which later developed into the University 
of Pennsylvania. Unlike its predecessors, it was not con- 
trolled by a religious denomination and gave more attention 
to modern subjects like English and the sciences. 

The middle region had its fair share of active-minded The intel- 
men who contributed to the education of their contempora- 
ries. The royal governors, for instance, were not all rakes 
or adventurers. One of them, Robert Hunter, was a friend 
of Addison and Swift, and his letters show his interest in 
natural science. His successor, Burnet, was a Cambridge 
University man, with some reputation as a collector and 
reader of books. A protege of both these governors was 
Cadwallader Colden, one of the most interesting personali- Cadwallader 
ties of provincial New York. A graduate in medicine of the ° ^°' 
University of Edinburgh, he came to America, spent a few 
years in business and medical practice at Philadelphia, and 



3o8 EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 

then attracted the attention of Governor Hunter, who made 
him surveyor-general of New York. Becoming interested in 
Indian relations, Colden wrote a well-known History of the 
Five Indian Nations. He was also the author of numer- 
ous philosophical and scientific papers, some of which were 
important enough to give him a recognized place in the 
history of American thought. 

The hst of Colden's Pennsylvania correspondents shows 
how the thinking men of these provinces were keeping in 
touch with one another. Three of them deserve special notice. 

James James Logan was a liberal-minded Scotch-Irish Quaker who 

^^' came to Pennsylvania as William Penn's secretary. Though 

a successful business man, poHtician, and judge, he kept up 
his scientific interests, contributing to the Transactions of 
the British Royal Society articles on mathematics, physics, 
and botany. In his old age Franklin printed for him a trans- 
lation of Cicero's De Senectute. Another interesting figure 

John was John Bartram, the botanist, whom a well-known 

^^ '"^™' contemporary scientist in England characterized as a 
"wonderful natural genius." 

Benjamin The Outstanding figure in this Pennsylvania group was 

of course Benjamin Franklin. A Yankee by birth, his 
naturally free and tolerant spirit found in Philadelphia con- 
genial and stimulating associations. Beginning as a printer's 
apprentice, he edited tlie principal newspaper of Pennsyl- 
vania and then turned naturally to pohtics. A leader first 
in his own province, his influence reached out into intercolo- 
nial and even imperial affairs. Better than any other Ameri- 
can he was fitted to mediate between his countrymen and 
the British government. He represented the latter as the 
head of the postal service in America and he became later 
the chief interpreter in England of the American point of 
view. Through his newspaper and his Poor Richard's Al- 
manac, he partly expressed and partly molded the popular 
"common-sense" pliilosophy of his fellow citizens. He 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



3C>9 



was full of plans for improving the life of his neighbors, — 
inventing improved fireplaces, devising protection against 
fires, and organizing an academy of sciences. Years before 
the Revolution, his wide acquaintance with men of distinc- 
tion in other colonies and in Europe, together witli his re- 
searches in electricity and other branches of science, made 
him a really international figure. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



General 
references. 



Sources. 



Winsor, America, V, ch. III. Fiske, Dutch and Quaker 
Colonies II, chs. XIV-XVII. Selected source material in Hart, 
Contemporaries, II, ch. IV and nos. 72, 81, 94, 97, 106. 

Becker, C. L., Political Parties in New York, ch. I. Channing, New York 
United States, II, 294-310, 483-489. Goodwin, M. W., Dutch 
and English on the Hudson, chs. X-XIV. Good contemporary 
account in Smith, W., History of New York (various editions, 
including N. Y. Hist. Soc, Collections, First Series, IV, V); extract 
in Stedman and Hutchinson, Library of American Literature, II. 
Governors' letters in Documents relating to the Colonial History of 
New York, especially V. Colden's letters in N. Y. Hist. Soc, 
Collections, L, LI. 

Channing, United States, II, ch. XI. Root, Relations of Penn- 
sylvania with the British Government. Sharpless, Quaker Govern- 
ment, I, and his Political Leaders of Provincial Pennsylvania. 
Biographies of Franklin by P. L. Ford, S. G. Fisher, W. C. Bruce, 
and others. 

Penn-Logan Correspondence (Penn. Hist. Soc, Memoirs). 
Franklin's Autobiography. 

Special students of constitutional history are referred to 
monographs by Shepherd (Pennsylvania), Fisher and Tanner 
(New Jersey), Spencer (New York). 

Channing, United States, II, ch. XIV. Bolton, C. K., Scotch- Immigration 
Irish Pioneers, chs. III-VIII, XIV. Ford, H. J., Scotch-Irish in 
America, chs. I-XVI. Faust, A. B., German Element in the United 
States, especially I, chs. III-V. Kuhns, O., German and Swiss 
Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania. Mellick, A. D., Story of an 
Old Farm, especially chs. III-VII, XI-XII (immigrant experiences). 



Pennsyl- 
vania. 



Readable 
sources. 

Political 
institutions. 



3IO EXPANSION IN THE MIDDLE PROVINCES 



Sources. 



The frontier 
and its 
problems. 



Religious 
elements. 



Culture.' 



Sources. 



Social and 

economic 

conditions. 



Pennsylvania German Society, Proceedings, XVIII (immi- 
grant's diary). Rush, B., Manners of the German Inhabitants 
(Penn. German Soc, Proceedings, XIX). 

Turner, Frontier in American History, ch. III. Halsey, F. W., 
Old New York Frontier, and his Tour of Four Great Rivers. Walton, 
J. S., Conrad Weiser. Mcllwain, Wraxall's Abridgment, pp. 
Ixivff. 

Jones, R., Quakers in America, bks. IV, V. Volumes in Ameri- 
can Church History Series on Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbj'terian, 
Dutch Reformed, German Reformed, and Moravian Churches. 

Cambridge History of American Literature, I, ch. VI. Cook, 
E. C, Literary Influences in Colonial Newspapers, chs. III-V. 
Oberholtzer, E. P., Literary History of Philadelphia, chs. I, II. 
Repplier, A., Philadelphia, the Place and the People, chs. Ill- VIII. 
Tyler, American Literature, II, ch. XVI. New Jersey Archives 
{Newspaper Extracts, I, II.) Franklin, Writings (Smyth edition, 
I-III). Woolman, J., Diary. Kalm's Travels (Pinkerton, 
Voyages, XIII). 

Andrews, Colonial Folkways. Clark, V. S., History of Manu- 
facturers in the U. S. Bond, B. W., Quitrent System in the 
American Colonies. 



CHAPTER XIV 
EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 

In the last decade of the seventeenth century, the Different 
southern colonies were in various stages of development, tdopment.^" 
On Chesapeake Bay, Maryland and Virginia were securely 
established, — both for the time being under royal govern- 
ments. In the tidewater section of these provinces, the 
colonial experience of three generations had taken shape in 
institutions, economic, political, and religious, whose main 
features were fairly well fixed. Half a century of remarka- 
ble growth was to follow, but largely on lines aheady indi- 
cated. With the struggling and isolated settlements to the 
southv/ard, it was quite another story. Thirty years after 
the Carolina proprietors secured their first charter, this great 
province was only slightly developed. On its nortliern edge, a 
few frontiersmen were raising corn, tobacco, and live stock, 
with shght regard to the authority of the proprietors. 
Separated from these settlements by a long stretch of un- 
occupied coast line was Charleston, the nucleus of a some- 
what more orderly community. This southern settlement, 
though favored by the proprietors, had hardly yet found 
itself economically or politically. In 1689, the Carolinas 
hardly numbered more than five thousand inhabitants be- 
tween them. With two separate assemblies and no effective 
general government, their future pohtical relations were still 
uncertain. Nominally Carolina extended to the twenty- 
ninth parallel; forty years passed, however, before the found- 
ing of Georgia definitely established British sovereignty 
beyond the Savannah. 

3" 



312 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



Political re- 
adjustment. 



Opposition 
to the 
Carolina 
proprietors. 



Complaints 
of the home 
government. 



Gradually the political geography was readjusted. The 
Revolution of 1688 had upset Lord Baltimore's authority 
and put a royal government in its place; but in 1715 a Prot- 
estant Calvert reclaimed the family inheritance and Mary- 
land again became a proprietary province. This relaxation 
of imperial control was, however, soon offset by the over- 
throw of proprietary government in the Carolinas. In 1732, 
the British government went back to seventeenth century 
practice and entrusted the new colony of Georgia to a 
private corporation; but this government was recognized as 
temporary, and definite provision made for its reversion to 
the Crown. When, in 1754, royal government was estab- 
lished in Georgia, the political subdi^dsion of the coast 
line was complete from Delaware Bay to the Altamaha 
River. Beyond that point was the "no-man's land" of the 
Anglo-Spanish frontier. On the eve of the Revolution, the 
machinery of royal government was set up in every prov- 
ince south of the Potomac. 

The Sou til Carolina uprising of 1719, which overthrew 
the proprietary governments, was the culmination of in- 
fluences at work for many years. The proprietary rights, 
originally held by some of the chief personages in English 
politics, gradually passed to men of inferior caliber less 
able to defend themselves against criticism; and of such 
criticism there was plenty on both sides of the Atlantic. 
Contrary to early expectations, Carolina did not send to Eng- 
land any staple comparable with West Indian sugar. Nortli 
Carolina had Httle commercial connection with England, 
and even the early development of rice culture about 
Charleston was still a small aSair compared with the highly 
colored statements of fifty years before. Meantmie royal 
agents were busy with reports of illegal trade and even 
more objectionable practices. No other province except 
perhaps the Bahamas had so bad a reputation for piracy 
as the Carolinas; even provincial officials were suspected 



UNREST IN CAROLINA 313 

of a criminal interest in the business. There were other 
evidences of poor management. North Carolina, for in- 
stance, attracted attention chiefly by a series of insurrections 
and small civil wars unparalleled in the history of any other 
province. During Queen Anne's War, both the home gov- 
ernment and the colonists felt that the proprietors had 
failed to do their part in defending the southern frontier. 
Then came two serious Indian wars, with the Tuscaroras 
in the north and the Yemassees in the south, and again the 
proprietors were found wanting. 

Notwithstanding this unsatisfactory record, the pro- Unrest ia 
prietors had enough influence at court to save their char- Carolina. 
tered privileges until the South Carolina people finally took 
matters into their own hands. By 17 19, the proprietors 
had gradually alienated almost every influential element 
in that province. The dissenters were exasperated by the 
Church Acts of 1704, put through by the high-church party Church 
under the governor's leadership. These acts not only 17*^04.° 
obliged them to pay church taxes but made them ineligible 
for membership in the assembly. Despairing of relief from 
the proprietors, they sent a mission to England which won 
over the Bishop of London by pointing out a clause in the 
law which interfered with his jurisdiction. The House of 
Lords finally took the matter up in an address to the Queen 
and there was serious talk of revoking the charter; but 
the proprietors were allowed to keep the government, with 
the understanding that the obnoxious laws were to be re- 
pealed, which was done shortly afterwards. Meantime the 
colonists had learned the possibility of appealing over the 
heads of the proprietors to the imperial government. 

Before long, new issues united most of the colonists in The revolu- 
opposition, without regard to religious affiliations. In ^°" ^ ^^^^' 
1719 it was announced that the proprietors had disallowed 
some popular laws, including one regulating elections to 
the assembly. Until 17 16 all these elections had been con- 



314 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



Royal gov- 
ernment in 
South and 
North 
Carolina. 



Southern 
expansion ; 
population 
and settled 
area. 



centrated in Charleston, an arrangement which became 
increasingly inconvenient as the colony developed, besides 
giving too much influence to the officeholders. So in 1716 
the assembly ordered that representatives should be chosen 
by elections in their respective districts. Unfortunately 
after one election had been held under the new law, tlie 
proprietors rejected it and ordered another election in 
Charleston on the old plan. New representatives were 
chosen accordingly; but they presently organized them- 
selves into a revolutionary convention and, with the help 
of militia assembled to meet a threatened Spanish invasion, 
they upset the proprietary government, choosing a new 
governor to act temporarily in the King's name. 

The home government promptly took advantage of this 
revolution and sent a provisional royal governor to Charles- 
ton. The proprietary government held on in North Car- 
olina, thus emphasizing still further the division of the old 
province; but most of the proprietors saw the futiUty of 
trying to keep their control and in 1728 agreed to a bargain 
by which the government was given up. All the propri- 
etors but one also transferred their rights in the soil to the 
Crown. This bargain was confirmed by Parliament in 1729 
and permanent royal governments were set up in North 
and South Carolina. For twenty years the two provinces 
had had almost nothing in common except their common 
subjection to the proprietors. Now the separation was 
complete. 

Even more significant than these political changes was 
the steady expansion of the settlements. In 1689, the whole 
region south of Pennsylvania probably had less than 90,000 
inhabitants. By 1760 this population had increased some 
seven or eight times, to about 700,000. About two thirds 
of these people still lived in the old Chesapeake provinces, 
but the rate of increase was naturally much faster in the 
younger colonies. For every colonist south of Virginia in 



GEORGIA FOUNDED 315 

1689, there were probably at least forty in 1760. North 
Carolina lagged behind for a time, but in the middle years 
of the eighteenth century it grew faster than any of its 
neighbors. At first the increase was largely in the tide- 
water region. In Virginia and Maryland, the strip between 
the coast line and tlie falls of the rivers had been fairly 
well occupied in the seventeenth century; but during the 
next fifty years the settlements became more compact. 
In the Carolinas, the occupation even of the lowland country 
was delayed by great areas of swamp land and by the "pine 
barren" strip which lay only a short distance back from 
the sea. There were a number of new settlements on the 
coast like Wilmington in North Carolina and Georgetown 
in South Carolina, but considerable stretches of coast line 
were still unoccupied. Meantime, the founding of Georgia 
pushed the international boundary southward beyond the 
Savannah River. 

A variety of motives worked togetlier when James The found- 
Oglethorpe and his fellow trustees secured their charter Georgia, 
from the King in 1732. Oglethorpe was really interested 
in giving poor but honest debtors a fresh chance in the 
New World. At the same time there was a good deal of 
sympathy for the German Protestants who had suffered 
persecution in the ecclesiastical principality of Salzburg and 
now sought refuge under the British flag. Imperialistic 
motives were also at work. The English fur traders had 
long been pushing through the mountains and around the 
southern end of the Appalachian system and the fate of 
the whole Southwest, from the mountains to the Mississippi, 
hung in the balance. Spaniards, Frenchmen, and English- 
men were engaged in a triangular competition for trade 
with the Indians and for political influence as a means of 
extending that trade. Georgia was thus expected to com- 
bme the advantages of a philanthropic establishment, a 
military garrison against the Spaniards, and a base for the 



3i6 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 

western fur trade. For such a colony something different 
from the older plantation settlements was needed. Regu- 
lations were therefore made to keep the land distributed 
among small proprietors capable of defending themselves 
against hostile neighbors, and slavery was prohibited be- 
cause a colony so near the frontier could not run the risk 
of slave insurrections. 

The expectations of the proprietors were not realized. 
A few debtors and foreign Protestants settled in the prov- 
ince, and Georgia traders began to compete successfully 
with those of Carolina; but the growth of the colony was 
painfully slow and opposition to the policy of the trustees 
finally became too strong to be resisted. Before long Geor- 
gia began to reproduce on a small scale the economic system 
of the South Carolina tidewater, with its large plantations, 
its rice culture, and its negro slaves. 
Develop- So far as the southern tidewater is concerned, the in- 

negro crcase in population came largely through the involuntary 

slave'Trade.^ immigration of African negroes. During tlie seventeenth 
century the southern planters, having experimented with 
different systems of labor, decided that negro slavery was 
best suited for their purposes. Meantime British merchants 
and their government were organizing as never before for 
the exploitation of the slave trade. The prosperity of the 
Royal African Company stimulated competition, and before 
long "separate traders" from England and America broke 
down the company's monopoly. In 1713 the British 
slave-traders gained a great advantage over Dutch and 
French rivals by the Asiento agreement, giving them the^ 
privilege of supplying slaves to the Spanish colonial market. 
There are no comprehensive statistics; but in 1734 it was 
estimated that about 70,000 slaves annually were exported 
from Africa to the New World. 

The responsibility for slavery in the English colonies 
must be widely distributed. British merchants, the im- 



POPULATION, BLACK AND WHITE 317 

perial government, which defeated efforts on tlie part of 
colonial assemblies to check the trade, New England traders, 
and Southern planters, — each group must take its share. 
At any rate, the main results are quite clear. In i68g 
slavery was just beginning to count largely in the indus- 
trial life of Virginia; elsewhere on the continent slaves were 
few. Even in Virginia, the proportion of slaves to white 
men was probably less than one in ten. All this was radically 
changed in the next seventy years. Except in Maryland, Growth 
the white servant class gave way rapidly before the negroes, ^puiltbn 
until in 1760 tlie blacks formed about two fifths of the 1689-1760. 
whole soutliern population. In South Carolina, where labor 
on the hot, low-lying rice plantations v/as almost impos- 
sible for Europeans, there were more than twice as many 
negroes as white men. In Virginia nearly half the popu- 
lation was black, and in the tidewater district of that prov- 
ince more than haK. In Maryland, where white service 
still continued on a large scale, the proportion of slaves 
was smaller; and in Nortla Carolina it was least of all, 
the development of the lowland plantation district be- 
ing overshadowed by the migration of small farmers into 
the back country. 

There was, of course, some additional white immigra- European 
tion on the seaboard. Virginia had a few hundred French "^°i'g^^o°- 
Protestant immigrants at the beginning of the century, 
most of whom were soon thoroughly assimilated. A few 
Germans also came in a little later, some of whom settled at 
Germanna near the Rapidan River. Some of the Palatine 
emigrants of 1 709 settled with a few Swiss in North Carolina, 
though the growth of this settlement was checked by Indian 
troubles. South Carolina had a sprinkling of non-English 
elements from the start, of whom the Huguenots were perhaps 
the most important. Between 1730 and 1750, new groups of 
non-English settlers took up land in this province, some in 
the lowlands and others in the piedmont area. Among them 



3i8 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



Colonization 
of the 
uplands. 



Immigrants 
from the 
North. 



were Swiss, Germans, Scotch, Scotch-Irish, and Welsh. The 
sum total of this later white immigration to the southern 
lowlands was small, however, as compared with tlie great 
mass of negro immigrants, and tlie white society of the tide- 
water was still dominated by people of English descent. 
It is this "old South" with its plantations and its numerous 
slaves whose doings are most prominent in southern history 
for the first half of tlie eighteenth century. 

Meantime, however, a "new South" was developing, 
sometim.es in contact with the older society and shading 
into it, but often separated from it by great tracts of wil- 
derness. This new colonization of the uplands came in part 
by expansion from the seaboard, where the best lands were 
being concentrated in a comparatively few hands, making 
it necessary for less fortunate people to turn elsewhere. 
Small farmers who could not compete with slaveholding 
planters, servants hoping to set up for themselves when 
their service expired, well-to-do land speculators, — all helped 
in the settlement of the piedmont district. As these settle- 
ments grew older, some of the characteristics of tidewater 
society were reproduced. Here also there were a few large 
plantations worked by negro slaves whose owners main- 
tained the social traditions of the seaboard people. On the 
whole, however, the small farm rather than the large plan- 
tation was the characteristic feature of this region, and the 
number of negroes was comparatively small. 

More important was the colonization of the interior by 
immigrants from the North. By the second quarter of the 
eighteenth century, many of the immigrants who came into 
Pennsylvania began to move southward along the eastern 
slopes of the Blue Ridge and through the Great Valley of 
the Appalachian system. As the price of land rose in Penn- 
sylvania, the Chesapeake colonies began to attract immi- 
grants by offering more favorable terms. This was done not 
only by the colonial governments, but also by speculators 



TIDEWATER AND BACK COUNTRY 319 

who had secured immense tracts which they were willing 
to lease or sell on easy terms. Concessions were also made 
in the direction of greater religious liberty. So the Germans 
and Scotch-Irish came in steadily increasing numbers from 
Pennsylvania into Maryland and Virginia. In 1738 Virginia 
created two new counties west of the Blue Ridge, to provide 
for the new population; and in the fifties and sixties of that 
century thousands of these northern immigrants moved 
into the back country of North Carolina, transforming that 
colony from one of the smallest on the continent into one 
of the largest. A somewhat smaller number passed on into 
South Carolina. 

As a result, then, of two great migrations, the South of Sectionalism 
the eighteenth century became quite different from that of gouth. 
the seventeenth. During the earlier period, it had been 
colonized almost entirely by white men, nearly all of whom 
were English. Now almost, if not quite, half the tidewater 
people were blacks, and in the back country, where negroes 
were comparatively few, the old English stock was out- 
numbered by a combination of Scotch-Irish, Germans, and 
other minor elements. The "new South" and the "old 
South" were yoked together in the same provincial gov- 
ernments; but in other respects they were far apart. The 
back-country people had more in common with those of 
their own kind who lived to the northward or southward 
than with their fellow citizens on the eastern seaboard. 
From now on this east-and-west sectionalism appears in 
almost every phase of southern history. 

The increasing supply of negroes helped to fix the sys- character- 
tem of large plantations, and though there were still ^idewate/^ 
small farmers in the tidewater, they were relatively unim- 
portant. Other influences were at work in the same di- 
rection. Land could now be taken up without the actual Landed 
importation of new settlers, on payment of five shillings ^^^^*^^^- 
per hundred acres. There were also irregular practices 



320 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



Quitrent 
troubles. 



Products 
of the 
tidewater; 
tobacco, 
rice, and 
indigo. 



which enabled influential men to secure land on even easier 
terms. One third of the land recorded in 1704 on the rent 
roll of Henrico County, Virginia, on the edge of the tide- 
water, was held by four persons, — in all nearly 56,000 
acres. One of these four persons was William Byrd of West- 
over, the founder of a notable landowning family, who 
bequeathed to his son, the second William Byrd, 26,000 
acres, which the son increased before he died to nearly 
180,000. This was exceptional, but a careful student has 
estimated that the "average well-to-do Virginian of the 
period owned as much as three thousand acres." These 
great estates were kept together by the English rule of 
primogeniture, which on the death of the owner gave the 
family land undivided to the eldest son. 

The quitrent system made trouble everywhere. In Mary- 
land these payments were due to the proprietors; in Vir- 
ginia and the Carolinas, m.ost of them went to tlie King, 
but there were troublesome exceptions. The "Northern 
Neck" in Virginia had been given away to Lord Culpeper, 
and was held in the eighteenth century by Lord Fairfax. 
Another strip in North Carolina was held by Lord Gran- 
ville, the one Carolina proprietor who had reserved his 
tide to the land. Both these noblemen had their own rent 
rolls and their own collectors. Quitrents were somewhat 
better collected in Maryland and Virginia than in the 
Carolinas; in North Carolina only a small amount was ever 
paid up. 

The southern plantations still concentrated largely on 
a few staples. For Maryland, Virginia, and a part of North 
Carolina the staple was tobacco; for South Carolina and 
Georgia it was rice, with the addition later of indigo. The 
tobacco planters had their fair share of difficulties. Waste- 
ful methods of agriculture wore out the soil and many 
planters became land poor. Fluctuations in price were 
also trying, especially when the long wars interfered with 



COMMERCE AND LABOR 32 1 

shipping and brought prices clown. People then began to 
talk about other industries, though without much per- 
manent effect. The South Carolinians had similar troubles 
with rice. Production had barely begun on a considerable 
scale when Parliament put rice in the list of enumerated 
articles which had to be shipped to England before its ex- 
portation to any other European ports. The effect on the 
trade was so disastrous that Parliament later allowed rice 
to be shipped to European countries south of Cape Finis- 
terre. Even then, however, tlie South Carolinians com- 
plained that m the Mediterranean countries they had to 
meet foreign competition, while then- best market was really 
in northern Europe. Important as these staples were, even Other 

cxDorts 

tlie lowland South was not wholly given over to their pro- 
duction. North Carolina had its "naval stores" — pitch, 
tar, and turpentine — from the pine forests. Lumber was 
cut for export and some of it v/as used for shipbuilding, 
though on a smaller scale than in the North. Cattle rais- 
ing was important in the Carolinas and some provisions 
were exported from the southern colonies. 

Though the plentiful supply of negroes established slav- The labor 
ery as the prevailing labor system of the tidewater, white white 
servants contmued to come in. The importation of con- 
victs, promoted by act of Parliament, was fairly large, 
especially in Maryland, and colonial laws restricting it were 
disallowed by the King. "The Lads of Virginia," a popular 
eighteenth-century English ballad, pictures the unhappy 
fate of a young offender, "sold for a slave in Virginia"; 
but many white servants were of a better sort and fared 
more comfortably, as, for instance, John Harrower, who, 
"being reduced to the last shilling," went to Virgmia as 
a schoolmaster for bed, board, washing, and five pounds 
for his full term of four years. He was presently put in 
charge of a school on a Rappahannock plantation, where 
he taught his master's children and those of neighbor- 



service. 



322 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 

ing planters. There were some skilled workmen among 
the white servants, the best of whom subsequently acquired 
land for themselves. 
Slavery. There were some misgivings about negro slavery. Peter 

Fontaine, an Anglican clergyman of Huguenot stock, 
spoke of it as the "original sin and curse of the country," 
but urged that when the colonists tried to restrict impor- 
tation, their acts were commonly disapproved in England. 
Besides, he argued, the negroes had been first enslaved in 
Africa by men of their own color; and in any case, "to 
live in Virginia without slaves" was "morally impossible." 
Few people were much troubled by this ethical problem; 
but many realized that it might be unsafe to have too many 
of these half-savage people. It is this anxiety chiefly which 
explains the restrictive laws just mentioned as well as the 
elaborate "patrol" systems adopted to control the negro 
population. South Carolina was especially troubled, not 
only because of its large proportion of negroes but also 
because it was close to the Spanish border. In 1739 the 
colony was alarmed by a negro insurrection which was said 
to have been instigated by the Spaniards. The proportion 
of negroes to whites was never so great in the continental 
colonies as in the West Indies. In South Carolina thirty 
slaves to a plantation was considered normal. In Virginia 
there were some large holdings; but the average was lower 
and there was more human contact between master and 
slave than in South Carolina, where many negroes remained 
in a savage state. Efforts were made to Christianize and 
educate the negroes, and the Anglican missionaries were 
expected to make this part of their work. The results 
were comparatively small, however, except for such dis- 
cipline as seemed necessary to effective service in the fields 
and in the household. 

There was still much talk about establishing towns and 
concentrating trade at certain ports; but though some laws 



PROVINCIAL CENTERS 323 

were passed, little was accomplished. Transatlantic as well Slight im- 
as coastwise commerce was still carried on at widely dis- orthe^^ 
tributed points on the coast and on the chief navigable ^Q^^^g"^'^" 
rivers. Until the latter half of the eighteenth century, 
there was no considerable town in Maryland, Virginia, or 
North Carolina. Their provincial capitals — Annapolis, 
Williamsburg, and Wilmington — were hardly larger 
than country villages, though dignified by the oflEicial resi- 
dences of the governors and filled up temporarily by the 
people who attended meetings of the colonial assembly or 
sessions of the provincial courts. The county seats were 
more insignificant still, except when elections were held or 
the county court was sitting. Norfolk, at the entrance of 
Chesapeake Bay, was said to have more "the air of a town" 
than any other place in Virginia, but it could not be com- 
pared with any one of half a dozen northern towns. The 
development of Baltimore had barely begun and its later 
prosperity was due more to the wheat farmers of Mary- 
land and Pennsylvania than to the plantations of the tide- 
water. Charleston had a unique place in the South. It Exceptional 

1 !• • 1 '11 r- 1 position of 

was not only a pohtical capital but the center of almost Charleston, 
every kind of provincial activity. Here there was a sub- 
stantial class of merchants with intercolonial and inter- 
national relations comparable with those of Boston, New 
York, and Philadelphia. Many planters also had town 
houses in Charleston. As one able student of southern 
history has put it, "Charleston was so complete a focus of 
commerce, politics, and society, that South Carolina was 
in a sense a city-state." 

In the broad strip of scattered settlements beyond the Character- 
"fall line," there was room for many phases of economic the back 
development. On its outer edges in close contact with the country. 
Indians, hunting and fur trading went on side by side with 
cattle raising and the clearing of small fields for cultivation. 
Here tliere was no question of slaves, white or black; 



324 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



Products of 
the back 
country. 



Economic 
problems of 
the back 
country. 



it was a society of freemen, developing on lines of equal 
opportunity. In some counties of the piedmont a good 
deal of pioneer simplicity existed side by side with farms 
of moderate size employing, as Patrick Henry did in his 
early married life, half a dozen negro slaves. The most 
eflScient agriculture of the South was to be found among 
the Scotch-Irish and German farmers of the Great Valley. 
Here, as in Pennsylvania, the Germans distinguished them- 
selves by their selection of the most productive lands, their 
capacity for hard work, and their consequent prosperity. 
Many settlements were made in a quite individualistic 
and isolated fashion; but throughout this region there were 
also groups of pioneers who settled together for common 
defense or on the basis of common religious interests. Com- 
munity settlements were especially characteristic of such 
German sects as the Mennonites and Moravians. One such 
Moravian community was Wachovia, founded in 1753 in 
the back country of North Carolina. 

Separated by long distances from the seaboard, these 
interior settlements were forced to make the necessaries 
of life for themselves. Their chief business was the raising 
of foodstuffs — cattle and grain, especially wheat. By the 
middle of the eighteenth century, the wheat production of 
the back country was gaining rapidly on the tobacco of 
the tidewater. The frontier had not only to raise its own 
food, but also to engage in the simpler forms of manufac- 
ture. Flour mills were set up; homespun clothing was 
prepared at home; in the villages of the Great Valley, 
there were wagonmakers, shoemakers, gunsmiths, and arti- 
sans of other essential trades. As the new settlements 
prospered they felt more and more the need of outlets for 
their surplus products. Cattle could be driven to market, 
but the transportation of wheat and flour was more difficult. 
Nevertheless, these products were hauled to the seaboard 
in considerable quantities for consumption there or for 



SOUTHERN POLITICS 325 

export. The Shenandoah valley traded more with Balti- 
more and Philadelphia than with tidewater Virginia; but 
in South Carolina the Charleston district began, after a 
time, to get from the back country foodstuffs previously 
imported from New York and Philadelphia. Naturally the 
upland farmer had a keen interest in internal improvements, 
such as the building of bridges and roads in place of Indian 
trails. 

While the back country was laying the economic foun- Southern 
dations of future power, it was leaving politics largely to Maryknd 
the tidewater planters and merchants. The monarchical g|)^^^'^" 
principle was stronger in the southern governments than 
in the North. In Maryland, the proprietor and his gov- 
ernor had, in spite of many vigorous controversies, much 
more power than Penn and his agents in Pennsylvania. 
From the imperial point of view, Virginia probably came 
nearer to bemg a model province than any other on the 
continent. The consent of the assembly was necessary 
for new laws or taxes; but the governor was the real, as 
well as the nominal, chief executive. While the governors of 
New York and Massachusetts were dependent on temporary 
votes of the assembly for their salaries and other ordinary 
charges, the Virginia governor drew his salary, by royal 
order, from a permanent fund which the assembly had 
set apart for this purpose. The quitrents formed another 
permanent fund, controlled not by the assembly but by 
the Crown. While Maryland was under royal government, 
her assembly also established a permanent fund and, in 
spite of protests from the assembly, the governor's salary 
was paid from it even after the proprietor had been restored. 

In the Carolinas, the governor was less fortunate. In Carolina 
North Carolina, his salary was supposed to be paid from p°"^''^^- 
the quitrents; but the cooperation of the assembly was 
necessary in order to collect them, and this cooperation 
was not forthcoming, so the governor's income was quite 



326 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



The council- 
ors and the 
local aris- 
tocracy. 



Character of 
the lower 
house. 



precarious. In South Carolina the governor was as badly 
off as in New York. He had to take what the assembly 
saw fit to give him from year to year and was often forced 
to accept measures which encroached upon his legitimate 
authority. Governor Glen declared in 1748 that executive 
power was largely in the hands of commissioners appointed 
by the assembly. Yet the difference between a strong 
royal government like Virginia and a weak one like South 
Carolina was only one of degree. Even in Virginia the 
governor had to go to the assembly (House of Burgesses) 
for supplies to meet emergencies and had to make conces- 
sions in return. Even there, the provincial treasurer was 
appointed not by the governor, according to the official 
theory, but by act of assembly. For many years this office 
was combined with that of speaker of the House of 
Burgesses. 

In the South, as in the North, the governor could not 
always count upon the support of the councilors, even 
though they were appointed by the Crown. Especially 
influential were the Virginia councilors. Chosen as they 
usually were from the principal landowning families and 
having also influential connections with British officials 
and merchants, it was not easy for the governor to manage 
them. An energetic governor sometimes undertook to re- 
form abuses in which councilors had a direct interest; 
but such efforts were often unsuccessful. More easy-going 
officials secured smooth administration by yielding to the 
wishes of the provincial politicians. In South Carolina, 
where politics turned largely on the conflict of interests 
between planters and merchants, councilors were frequently 
chosen from the latter class, which was naturally more 
conservative on such questions as the issue of paper money. 

To what extent the representative house, variously known 
as burgesses, commons, or simply assembly, can be regarded 
as really democratic is not an altogether simple question. 



SOUTHERN LEADERS 327 

Though the suffrage was limited by property qualifications, The suffrage, 
the proportion of actual voters in the white population 
seems to have been as large as in the North, if not larger. 
This is not surprising since the white total for the South 
included a much smaller proportion of the working class, 
which was there composed largely of negro slaves. To a 
conservative gentleman like Governor Spotswood, the Vir- 
ginia House of Burgesses seemed at times much too dem- 
ocratic, being chosen "from tlie meaner sort of people." 
Similar complaints were made elsewhere. 

The efficiency of popular control varied according to the Extent of 
personal qualities of the governor, the leading councilors, cont^roL 
and the popular leaders. Spotswood, in spite of his remarks 
about the "meaner sort of people," had previously prided 
himself on his ability to manage an assembly. Hostile critics 
also complained that governors could bear down opposition 
through their control of the patronage and their right to pro- 
rogue and dissolve assemblies. Conflicts between the council 
and the lower house were frequent here as elsewhere, the 
latter especially insisting on its right to frame money bills 
without amendment by the council. Nevertheless, the 
leading families, which were represented in the council, un- 
doubtedly had great influence also in the lower house. 

It is not worth while to dwell on minor politicians and Southern 
the details of provincial politics. A few southern leaders, 
however, deserve notice either for what they did or because 
they illustrate important phases of colonial life. Of the 
southern governors during the first half of the eighteenth 
century, Alexander Spotswood seems to deserve the leading Governor 
place usually assigned to him. A Scotchman by birth, ^p*^*^^^°° • 
like his two immediate successors, he came to Virginia in 
1710 to begin his twelve years' service as lieutenant governor. 
In his time, as during the next half century, the lieutenant 
governor was the resident head of the administration, the 
nominal governor being a distinguished British noble, who 



328 EXPANSION IN TflE SOUTH 

drew a considerable salary but did not think it necessary 
to live in the province. Unlike man}'' other governors, 
Spotswood did not leave the province after his removal from 
ofl5ce and may be considered a real Virginian. A sturdy 
fighter himself, he had to face councilors who were equally 
determined; but in spite of their opposition he managed 
to reform some abuses in land administration. He was an 
active promoter of William and Mary College, then a young, 
struggling institution; cooperated with other governments 
in breaking up piracy; and took an active interest in west- 
ward expansion, personally leading an expedition over the 
Blue Ridge. Unfortunately, he antagonized so many influ- 
ential men, including the Bishop of London's commissary, 
James Blair, that he was finally removed from office. This 
was not, however, the end of Spotswood's public service. 
He interested himself in the manufacture of iron and in 1730 
he was made deputy postmaster-general for America. Just 
before his death in 1740, he was busy helping to organize 
a military expedition against the Spaniards. 
William One of Spotswood's chief opponents was William Byrd H, 

^y^^ l^- who belonged to a great landowning family which kept its 
place in the council for three generations. William Byrd II 
was a councilor for thirty-seven years and for a short time 
president of the council. Like his father before him, he 
held also for several years the office of receiver-general of 
quitrents. A strenuous defender of his personal and class 
interests, he was also a man of cultivated tastes. He had 
been educated in England, was a member of the Royal 
Society, and gathered at his beautiful estate of Westover 
on the James one of the largest and best-selected libraries 
in America. His best monument, however, is the collection 
of his Writings, published long after his death and containing 
among other things a charming description of his friendly 
visit to the plantation of his former antagonist, Governor 
Spotswood. Most familiar of all is his picturesque, if unfair, 




William Byrd, II 



ASSEMBLY LEADERS 329 

description of the North Carolina countrymen. ''They 
keep," he said, "so many sabbaths every week that their 
disregard of the seventh day has no manner of cruelty in it 
either to servants or cattle." 

Among the ablest leaders of popular parties in the pro- Popular 
vincial assemblies two men may be mentioned as fairly typi- ^^ ^^^' 
cal: Daniel Dulany, the elder, of Maryland, and Charles 
Pinckney of South Carolina. Dulany, beginning as a poor Dulany. 
immigrant from Ireland, became a large landowner, as well 
as a leader at the bar. Though he held office as attorney- 
general under the proprietor, he led the lower house in a 
memorable fight to secure for Maryland certain advantages 
of the English statute law. Pinckney, unlike Dulany, was Pinckney. 
born into an influential family, and his wife, Eliza Lucas, 
was not only a fine personality but a capable plantation man- 
ager. He, too, rose to high office, serving first as attorney- 
general and then as chief justice. He was also for a time 
speaker of the lower house and a strenuous defender of its 
privileges, including the exclusive control of money bills. 
Having been educated in England, Pinckney emphasized 
English precedents. The South Carolinians, he argued, 
were entitled to all the rights of Englishmen, and their rep- 
resentative house had the same rights in this respect as 
the House of Commons in England. Both these American 
defenders of the "rights of Englishmen " gave their sons a 
legal education in the famous "Middle Temple" in London. 
It is worth noting that Dulany's son argued against the 
Stamp Act and that one of the younger Pinckney s helped 
to frame the Federal Constitution of 1787. 

During most of this period, the older settlements con- Sectionalism 
trolled provincial politics without serious difficulty. When. '° ^ ^ '^^' 
new counties were formed and their population grew, the 
seaboard districts insisted on more than a fair share of the 
representation. Because of this under-representation of 
the interior counties, their special interests were naturally 



330 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



Established 
churches. 



Anglican 
Church in 
Virginia. 



Dissenters. 



neglected. Insufficient provision was often made for 
local government, the administration of justice, and public 
improvements of special importance to the frontiersmen. 
In the next generation, this conflict between tidewater and 
back country, and the effort of the latter, under the leader- 
ship of men like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, to 
break the exclusive control of the old ruling class, had an 
important relation to the struggle with the mother country. 

The Church of England still had an important part in 
southern society. Its status as a state church entitled to 
public support was recognized in all the colonies from Mary- 
land to South Carolina; and, except in North Carolina, the 
establishment was fairly effective. In the Carolinas, this 
official support was supplemented by the missionary work 
of the Society for Propagating the Gospel. Taking the period 
as a whole, however, the established church lost ground as 
compared with the dissenters; so much so that when the 
Revolution of 1776 cut off the support of the British govern- 
ment, the separation of church and state became compara- 
tively easy. 

Of all the colonies, Virginia seemed most thoroughly 
grounded in Anglican principles. In 1699, when the assem- 
bly passed its first toleration act, there were only a few 
dissenters, chiefly Quakers and Presbyterians, Here as 
in other colonies, however, the colonial church suffered 
by not having its normal organization. The Bishop of Lon- 
don's commissary had little authority and was involved in 
frequent disputes with the governor and with the planters 
who formed the parish vestries. The status of the ministers, 
who, instead of being permanently inducted were commonly 
."hired" from year to year, was far from dignified. Many 
of the clergy did good work, even under this lax system, 
but others neglected their duties and thus weakened the 
influence of the church. 

Meantime the dissenters were becoming more numerous, 



CHURCH AND STATE 33 1 

partly because the government itself made concessions to 
prospective settlers, especially on the frontier. In the Great 
Valley, as a result of Scotch-Irish and German immigration, 
the Anglican churchmen found themselves in a minority 
among the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other sects. To 
encourage the Presbyterians, Governor Gooch not only prom- 
ised the restricted toleration recognized by law but in prac- 
tice went even farther. So the religious life of the Valley 
was guided by a great variety of preachers, some of whom 
took long missionary journeys through the frontier settle- 
ments from Pennsylvania to the Carolinas. From the An- 
gUcan point of view, this was undesirable; but, just as the 
English government had been willing to allow overseas 
a degree of religious toleration not considered safe at home, 
so many Virginia churchmen did not mind having their 
frontiers secured by people whose religious ideas were not 
entirely orthodox. 

Presently, however, dissent began to grow nearer home. The Great 
Some of the northern immigrants moved into the piedmont amf the'°^ 
and so came in contact with Anglicans who had moved up ^^jg^J^QQ 
from the tidewater. About the same time, echoes of the Great 
Awakening began to reach these middle counties and create 
a demand for a different kind of religious teaching from that 
furnished by the established church. These conditions, to- 
gether with increasing friction between the Anglican clergy 
and laity, gave the Presbyterians especially an opportunity 
of which they quickly took advantage, to the annoyance of 
the Anglican party. The latter now demanded a stricter 
enforcement of the law requiring ministers and places of 
worship to be licensed by the civil authorities and thus 
restricting considerably the traveling preachers. Dissenters 
who failed to observe these rules were fined for nonattendance 
at church and ministers were sometimes refused licenses. 
Under the able leadership of Samuel Davies, afterwards 
president of Princeton, the Presbyterian clergy appealed to 



332 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



the home government, which declared in favor of a more 
liberal policy. Meantime the need of cooperation against 
the French, together with the militant patriotism of the 
Presbyterians, turned public opinion toward a more liberal 
policy. The fight for simple toleration was now practically 
won and before the Revolution the dissenters outnumbered 
the adherents of the established church. Complete separa- 
tion of church and state and the abolition of church taxes 
did not come, however, until after the Revolution. 

In Maryland also, the Anglican establishment was fahly 
strong at the close of the seventeenth century, though 
dissenters were more numerous than in Virginia. The Catho- 
lics, though only a persecuted minority, had a social pres- 
tige out of proportion to their numbers. The Quakers kept 
up a persistent fight agamst church taxes and there was 
always a strong Puritan element, later reenforced, as in Vir- 
ginia, by Germans and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. Here, 
too, the unfortunate character of some of the clergy weakened 
the estabUshment and prepared the way for its final over- 
throw. In North Carolina, the Quakers were first in the 
field and the dissenters gained a lead which was confirmed 
by later immigration. In South Carolina, Anglicans and 
dissenters were for a time more nearly equal, especially 
since the Huguenots were inclined^ to sympathize with the 
Anglicans. Here also, however, the up-country population 
ultimately gave the dissenters a decided majority. 

So before the Revolution the religious complexion of the 
South was radically changed. The Anglican Church had 
the greatest prestige in tlie tidewater; but in the back 
country it was overshadowed by the dissenters, of whom the 
strongest and most aggressive were the Presbj-terians. 
These Puritans of the South looked for inspiration and lead- 
ership, not to the older settlements of their own provinces 
or to England, but to the northern presbyteries of New 
York and Philadelphia, or, going still farther back, to those 



EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH S33 

of Scotland and Ulster. They were often quite as intense 
in their ecclesiastical partisanship as the Anglicans; but 
contact with men of different faiths gradually developed 
among the frontier people a spirit of mutual toleration. 
In this respect the South drifted much farther from seven- 
teenth-century conditions than Puritan New England. 

Educational development in the South differed from that Educational 
of New England chiefly in the fact that the former section, ^^^ opmcnt. 
because of its scattered and largely rural population, could 
not establish effective state systems of elementary education 
and consequently depended more largely on private initia- 
tive, combined with tlie efforts of the clergy. Regarding the 
actual progress of education in the two sections, extreme 
claims have been made on both sides and more scientific 
study of the subject is necessary before a just statement can 
be made. It is certain, however, that this period in southern 
history is marked by some notable advances in education. 

The only institution of collegiate grade was William and William 
Mary College, founded, after a long period of preliminary CoUce?'^^ 
discussion, largely through the efforts of that energetic 
Scottish churchman, Commissary James Blair, who secured 
the royal charter in 1693. Blair himself was president for 
fifty years, his associates were generally clergymen, and 
religious training was emphasized. The college was supported 
by quitrents, provincial appropriations, and private gifts; but 
many years passed before it gave anything more than the 
most elementary instruction; and even after 1729, when its 
faculty consisted of President Blair and six professors, it 
resembled other colonial colleges in being little more than 
an academy. It had, however, some able English and Scotch 
teachers, who trained many of tlie future leaders in Virginia 
politics. 

Some well-to-do Southerners sent their sons abroad. Education 

T 1 <- 1 I- 1 • > r abroad. 

In the first three quarters of the eighteenth century, fourteen 
Virginians went to Oxford and eight to Cambridge. Others 



334 EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 

Studied in such famous English "public schools" as Eton 
and Harrow. South Carolina, which had no college of its 
own, probably sent a larger proportion of its young men 
to England than any other province. A fair number of 
Southerners got their legal training in the English Inns 
of Court. Of the seventy colonials who entered the 
Middle Temple before 1760, more than half came from 
Virginia and Maryland. If all the entries down to 1775 are 
included, the South furnished more than two thirds, with 
South Carolina in the lead. The intellectual training of the 
educated leaders was distinctly English, whether received in 
England or through Oxford and Cambridge graduates in 
America. How important this influence was may be seen 
by studying the representative Virginians and South Caro- 
linians of the Revolutionary era. Of the seven Virginians 
who signed the Declaration of Independence, four had been 
students at William and Mary, one at Cambridge University, 
and another at an English academy. Four "Middle 
Templars" signed the Declaration of Independence for 
South Carolina and three were members of the Federal 
Convention from that state. 

Elementary Elementary education was provided in various ways. 

education. There were some endowed schools in every colony. Many 
of the Anglican clergy kept schools in connection with their 
parish work and some of them were real scholars. Some- 
times groups of planters combined to build schoolhouses 
and provide masters for their children. Private tutors were 
also employed, especially by the wealthier families. No 
exact statement can be made as to the amount of education 
thus furnished; but a careful study of the advertisements 
in the South Carolina Gazette indicates that there were in 
that colony between 1733 and 1774, nearly two hundred 
persons engaged as tutors, schoolmasters, or schoolmistresses. 
Among the subjects taught were French, Latin, and Greek. 
There were schools for girls as well as boys. Provision was 



INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS 335 

also made in the South, as elsewhere, for training children of 
the poorer classes, especially in connection with apprentice- 
ship to a trade. 

The first southern newspaper was the Maryland Gazette, Newspapers, 
founded in 1727; then came the South Carolina Gazette 
in 1732 and the Virginia Gazette in 1736. The first and last 
were founded by William Parks, who in 174 1 added to his 
printing shop at WiUiamsburg a bookstore with an assortment 
of ancient and modern classics. There were some private 
libraries; the largest and most comprehensive was that of 
the Byrds at Westover, which finally grew to over 3000 
volumes. Rev. Thomas Bray, one of the founders of the So- 
ciety for Propagating the Gospel, established a number of 
small lending libraries for the clergy, and in 1 743 a few book- 
lovers founded the Charleston Library Society. 

The chief intellectual centers of the South were Williams- intellectual 
burg and Charleston. Williamsburg was the residence the South. 
of the Virginia governors, who were, sometimes at least, 
men of cultivated tastes and broad interests, like Spotswood, 
or Fauquier, who half a century later stimulated, if he did 
not altogether improve, young Virginians of Jefferson's time. 
Here also were the provincial printing press, the principal 
book shop, and the College of William and Mary with its 
faculty recruited from the British universities. The drama, 
too, had its place; the Williamsburg theater, built about 
1716, was probably the first in America. Charleston had no 
college, but it was a. real city, with perhaps the most culti- 
vated society to be found anywhere in America. Here in 
the middle years of the eighteenth century the South Caro- 
linians had a chance to hear scientific lectures, good concerts, 
and some English plays. 

Intellectual interests of the kind just described were Education 
confined to a small class, even in the tidewater. In the newer settkments. 
settlements educational opportunities were naturally more 
limited and progress, when it came, was on quite different 



33^ 



EXPANSION IN THE SOUTH 



General 

accounts 

Sources, 
general. 



Virginia. 



Sources. 



Maryland 



The 
Carolinas. 



lines. Here, too, religion and education were closely asso- 
ciated; but the dissenting ministers took the place of the 
Anglican clergy; especially significant was the work of the 
Scotch and Irish Presbyterians. After the establishment 
of Princeton College its graduates took an active part 
in the education of the '' new South, " though their influence 
was not strongly felt until just before the Revolution. By 
that time Princeton was attracting a number of southern 
students, among them James Madison, who helped to frame 
the Virginia constitution of 1776 and the Federal Consti- 
tution of 1787. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Fiske, Old Virginia, II, 162-400. Winsor, America, V, chs. 
IV-VI. 

Hart, Contemporaries, II, chs. V, VI, nos. 82, 83, 106. Burnaby, 
A., Travels (Pinkerton, Voyages, XIII). Quincy, J., Journal 
(1773) (Mass. Hist. See, Proceedings, XLIX), 

Bassett, J. S., Writings of Colonel William Byrd, Introduc- 
tion. Meade, W., Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of 
Virginia. Stannard, M. N., Colonial Virginia. Ford, W. C, 
Washington, I, ch. VII. Rowland, K. M., George Mason, 1, chs. 
II, III. Tyler, L. G., Williamsburg. Beveridge, A. J., John 
Marshall,!, 19-60 (back-country conditions). Detailed study of 
political institutions by P. S. Flippin in Columbia Univ. Studies. 

Byrd's Writings. Maury, A., Memoirs of a Huguenot Family. 
Fithian, P. V., Journal and Letters. Harrower, J., Diary {Am. 
Hist. Review, VI, 65-107). Jones, H., Present State of Virginia 
(1724; partial reprint in Stedman and Hutchinson, Library of 
American Literature, II, 279-287). Spotswood, A., Official Letters 
(Virginia Hist. Soc, Collections, New Series, I, II). 

JNlereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, especially pp. 
437-459 and pL I, chs. IV, V. Articles by Sioussat, in Johns 
Hopkins Studies, XXI, nos. VI, VII, XI, XII. 

Ashe, S. A., North Carolina, chs. XIII-XX, XXIII, especially 
chs. XIX, XXIII. Channing, United States, II, ch. XII. McCrady, 
South Carolina, 16/0-1719, especially chs. XXVIII-XXX; and 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 337 

his South Carolina, 171Q-1775, especially chs. XVI-XXVI. Hugh- 
son, S. C, Carolina Pirates {Johns Hopkins Studies). Ravenel, 
H. H., Charleston, chs. IV-X. Schaper, W. A., Sectionalism and 
Representation in South Carolina. Detailed descriptions of gov- 
ernment in Smith, W., South Carolina, and Raper, C. L., North 
Carolina. 

Salley, A. S., Narratives of Early Carolina, 211-373. Glen, J., Sources. 
Description of South Carolina (in Carroll, Collections of South 
Carolina II). 

Greene, Provincial America, ch. XV. Jones, C. C, Georgia, I. Founding of 
Biographies of Oglethorpe, by H. A. Bruce and R. Wright. For ^^^''S'^- 
governmental details see McCain, J. R., Georgia as a Proprietary 
Province. Charter in Macdonald, Select Charters, no. 49. 

Channing, United States, II, 376-398. Phillips, U. B., Ameri- Slavery. 
can Negro Slavery, chs. I-V and his Plantation and Frontier (sources). 

Faust, German Element, I, chs. V^I-IX. Ford, Scotch-Irish, Immigration, 
ch. XIV and later chapters passim. Turner, Frontier in American and^frontier 
History, ch. III. Moravian diaries in Virginia Mag. of Hist, and society. 
Biog., XI, XII. 

Perry, W. S., American Episcopal Church, 1. Mcllwaine, H. R., Religion. 
Struggle of the Protestant Dissenters (Johns Hopkins Studies). 
Good studies of religion in North Carolina by S. B. Weeks in 
Johns Hopkins Studies, X, XI. McLaughlin, A. C, et al., Source 
Problems in U. S. History, 183-235. 

Tyler, American Literature, II, Ch. XVII. Cook, Literary Culture. 

, Influences in Colonial Newspapers, chs. VI- VIII. Jernegan, 

'1 Educational Development of the Southern Colonies (School Review, 

, 1919). Tyler, L. G., Education in Colonial Virginia (William 

ami Mary College Quarterly, V, VI, \TI). Motley, James Blair 

(Johns Hopkins Studies). 



CHAPTER XV 
ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 

"We hope to plant a nation 
Where none before hath stood." 

These Unes, written by one of the Virginia pioneers, 
of 1610, perhaps express the feeUng of his more thought- 
ful comrades, at a time when the fate of the young colony 
still hung in the balance. What kind of nation he was 
dreaming of one can only guess, but it was certainly nothing 
remotely resembling the American nation of the twentieth 
century. It is interesting, however, for the moment to place 
ourselves midway between these two points in time and see 
what elements of a new nationality can be traced after a 
century and a half of colonial development. 
The thirteen It must be remembered, first, that the thirteen colonies 
their neigh- which were to bccome the nucleus of a new American nation 
"O'^s. were closely associated with other English provinces which 

have had quite a different history. To think of the "thir- 
teen" as having a clear group consciousness, marking them 
off sharply from all other settlements and uniting them to 
each other, would be to read back into the past the thought 
of later generations. With the fishing stations of Newfound- 
land and the sugar islands of the West Indies, the continental 
colonies had relations too close to be broken without serious 
inconvenience. Politically also the mainland colonies had 
much in common with the West Indies. The constitutional 
controversies of Barbados and Jamaica were often much like 
those of the continental colonies. It is equally true that ' 
within the traditional group of thirteen there were sharp 

338 



interests. 



cations,; 



MEANS OF COIMMUNICATION 339 

conflicts of interest and radically different traditions. A 
South Carolina planter of 1750 would probably have felt 
himself more at home in Barbados than in Boston. 

Nevertheless, the developments of the eighteenth century Common 
were gradually bringing the continental colonies closer to 
each other and giving them some common interests which 
were not so fully shared by the island settlements. One of 
these developments was the improvement of land communi- 
cations. In the seventeenth century, nearly all intercolonial 
trade was carried on by sea. In those days Charleston was 
for practical purposes not much farther from the West 
Indies than from New England. In the eighteenth century, Communi- 
this sea trade was still most important; but with the devel- 
opment of the interior more attention was paid to roads and 
bridges. By 1739, a complete series of post routes had 
been established from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to 
Charleston, South Carolina; and, with increasing population, 
the wilderness intervals between successive stations were 
gradually getting shorter. Meantime Indian trails were 
taking shape as recognized highways through the upland 
country from New York and Pennsylvania to Georgia. 
All along this north-and-south line were settlers, to whom the 
island colonies were far off indeed, but who had much in 
common with their fellow landsmen in other provinces. 
To the twentieth-century man with his railroads and motor 
cars, his telegraph and telephone, these primitive beginnings 
of colonial intercourse seem poor indeed. Roads were bad, 
almost impassable rivers often blocked the way, and even 
tolerable lodgings were quite uncertain. Journeys now 
counted in hours then took as many days. Yet an increasing 
number of travelers were braving the hardships and dangers 
of the road, letters were passing to and fro, and newspapers 
were beginning to bring the inhabitants of each colony some 
information at least about the business and politics of their 
fellow provincials. 



340 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



Conflict 
with insular 
interests. 



Elements 
of unity. 
The English 
language. 



Dutch and 
German ele- 
ments. 



While intercolonial barriers were thus becoming less 
formidable on the continent, the northern colonies especially 
were keenly conscious of a conflict of interests between them- 
selves and the British West Indies. So far, the latter were 
still the favorite children of the imperial family, as Parlia- 
ment showed when it passed the Molasses Act of 1733; 
but the continental group with its expanding population, 
territory, and wealth was getting a new sense of its own im- 
portance. On the eve of the last French War, the population 
of the continental colonies was rapidl}^ approaching a million 
and a half, a small figure as compared with the national states 
of the present day, but enough to make a respectable politi- 
cal community when judged by eighteenth-century stand- 
ards. It seems worth while, therefore, to ask whether there 
were among these provincial Americans any common ele- 
ments of a new civilization sufficiently differentiated from 
that of England to justify us in callmg it American rather 
than Enghsh. 

In race and language, the Americans of 1750 were of 
course predominantly British. So far as language was con- 
cerned the predominance was overwhelming. In New Eng- 
land, the non-English element was weakest and racial 
consciousness was felt, even when the people were most 
resentful of British policies. The same John Adams who 
led the fight for the Declaration of Independence wrote 
only a few months earher that among the chief advantages 
of his own New England was its "purer Enghsh blood," 
less "mixed" than any other. Elsewhere the problem was 
not so simple. In New York, the traveler of 1 7 50 found Dutch 
still the prevailing language of Albany and some of the 
smaller villages, though in the province as a whole EngUsh 
was increasing its lead as the younger generation of Dutchmen 
gradually gave up the mother tongue. In New York, also, 
was the northern end of an important series of German 
settlements, extending southward through Pennsylvania 



LITERARY INFLUENCES 341 

and the Shenandoah valley to the nev/ colony of Georgia. 
Here were communities taught by German-trained clergy, 
speaking the German language, reading the Bible m Luther's 
translation instead of the King James version, depending for 
information on German newspapers and German calendars. 
Only in Pennsylvania, however, was the German stock more 
than a small minority before the Revolution. The proportion 
in Pennsylvania was perhaps a third of the total population; 
in the thirteen colonies as a whole, the proportion was per- 
haps a little over one in ten. The only other non-English 
stocks which came in large numbers before 1750 were the 
Scotch and the Scotch-Irish, both for the most part English- 
speaking though with distinct national or racial feelings of 
their own. In politics and the shaping of political insti- 
tutions, the men of English speech, and even of English 
descent, had a greater advantage than statistics indicate, 
because the non-English people were largely newcomers, who 
had scarcely found their bearings. They were also, except 
in New York, largely massed in the interior covmties, which 
were not fully represented in the colonial assemblies. 

Through their common language, educated Americans Common 
shared with other Englishmen of their day a common litera- literature. 
ture and the traditional ideals which that literature expressed. 
Easily first in this common hterature was the King James 
version of the Bible, the one great book of the "plain people" 
of English speech on both sides of the Atlantic. Shakespeare 
and other classics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
were neglected in America, as indeed they were by English- 
men at home; but there was an educated class which read, 
and was influenced by, contemporary English essayists, novel- 
ists, and pla}'writers. Some continental writers, hke tlie 
Dutch publicist Grotlus, the German Puffendorf, and the 
later French thinkers Voltaire and Montesquieu, were known 
to a few i\raericans in their original texts or in English 
translations; but English books on theology and politics 



342 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



English 
fashions. 



Enghsh 
traditions in 
government. 



Enghsh 
precedents 
in the 
colonial 
assemblies. 



were the most familiar of all to the educated leaders of 
provincial society. Hundreds of young Americans formed 
their ideas upon, or adapted to their purposes, the politi- 
cal philosophies of Algernon Sidney and John Locke. 

In some externals the older communities seemed to 
become more rather than less English. Well-to-do merchants 
and planters followed the fashions of old England in their 
houses, furniture, and dress. English engravings were com- 
mon in their houses and guests were served on the best 
Enghsh chma. The landed gentry of Virginia and 
New York cultivated the sports of country squires on 
the other side, even importing English foxes for the pur- 
pose. In short, as one Enghshman said, in 177 1, there seemed 
to be little difference in the "manner of a wealthy colonist 
and a wealthy Briton." 

In more important matters, most Americans believed 
themselves to be following the substance, if not the letter, 
of EngUsh tradition. As one colonial government after 
another was remodeled, the people who Hved under it came 
to regard it as a miniature copy of the English constitution. 
The governor was not a hereditary monarch; but, theoreti- 
cally at least, the prerogatives which he defended with more 
or less success were those of the King whom he represented. 
The councilors who formed the upper house had no such 
independent status as the nobles and bishops who sat in the 
House of Lords; but in New York and Virginia especially 
they represented to a considerable extent the leading fami- 
lies of the province. Above all, the assembly stood for the 
English principle of representation, a kind of representation 
enjoyed in those days by none of the great nations of con- 
tinental Europe. 

Under various names, — burgesses, commons, or represent- 
atives, — the members of these provincial assemblies regarded 
themselves as legitimate heirs, within their limited field, 
to the great traditions of the English House of Commons. 



POLITICAL PRECEDENTS 343 

Even in formal procedure, English parliamentary practice 
was closely followed. At Williamsburg and New York, as 
at Westminster, the representatives of the property holders 
were summoned or dismissed by the King or his representa- 
tive, but while in session they chose their own speakers, 
claimed the same privilege of free debate, and administered 
similar rules of procedure. Messages and addresses passed 
between governor and assembly, or assembly and council, 
much as they did between Commons and King, or Commons 
and Lords. Doubtless colonial advocates were not always 
consistent. They could find reasons why the governor should 
not exercise all the prerogatives of the Crown and they some- 
times denounced councilors for claiming the privileges of 
the House of Lords; but they Avere practically unanimous 
in insisting that English precedents held good on their own 
side of the argument. Above all, they asserted their exclusive 
right to grant the people's money and determine how it should 
be spent. In matters like this, Massachusetts, New York, 
and South Carolina, with all their differences, were substan- 
tially agreed. Orthodox English lawyers did not accept this 
reasoning and insisted that a colonial assembly was scarcely 
more than a municipal corporation; but this official theory 
did not appeal to the colonists. 

Local government, which came much closer to daily Local 
life, was naturally more influenced by the special needs 
of a new country and the particular needs of each section — 
its physical environment, its economic development, or the 
distinctive ideals of its founders. Massachusetts, New York, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia worked out four quite different 
systems of county government. Yet in all these colonies 
the English county reappeared in some form. Boroughs 
organized on the English model were not so common; but, 
nearly everywhere, under different names and varying 
forms, there was something corresponding roughly to the 
English parish. Justices of the peace, sheriffs, and con- 



government. 



344 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



English 
traditions 
of personal 
liberty. 



The common 
law in the 
colonies. 



stables were equally familiar to Englishmen on both sides 
of the water. Virginia with its county courts and parish 
vestries came closest to the old model; but everywhere the 
Americans of 1750 cherished the English tradition of local 
self-government, controlled by general laws yet ready to 
assert itself on occasion against the central authority. 

More vital to the ordmar}- man than governmental 
forms was the protection of individual liberty against ar- 
bitrary interference. In defending this liberty, eighteenth- 
century Americans generally used EngUsh precedents, put- 
ting into them much that would have seemed strange to 
their medieval authors. This reading of new ideas into 
old documents was, however, a well-recognized English 
habit on both sides of the Atlantic. Wlien, therefore, the 
Massachusetts representatives claimed to find in Magna 
Carta a good argument against giving their governor a 
permanent salary, they were certainly twisting that famous 
document, but doing it in quite the traditional English 
manner. Long before the Revolution, Americans had 
learned to talk also of natural rights, again with good Eng- 
lish authorities, like Hooker and Locke, to support them; 
but their most confident appeal v^as to the ''rights of Eng- 
lishmen. " Old John Wise of Ipswich made himself obnox- 
ious to His Majesty's government of New England in 1687, 
but in 1710 he founded his opposition to' absolutism., partly, 
at least, on English traditions. The Enghsh people, he 
said, had been "through immemorial ages" ''the owner 
of very fair enfranchisements and liberties"; "Englishmen 
hate an arbitrary power (politically considered) as they 
hate the devil." 

For enforcing the "rights of Englishmen," the colonists 
depended largely on the common law as administered 
thirough the courts of justice. Their claim to share in this 
inlieritance was based in part upon such royal declarations 
as that made in tlie Virginia charter of 1606, that English 



THE co:mmon law 345 

subjects born in the proposed new settlements should 
"enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities" "as if 
they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of 
England." They could strengthen this argument by Brit- 
ish legal opinions like that of Richard West, counsel to the 
Board of Trade, who declared in 1720 that wherever an 
Englishman went he took "as much of law and liberty with 
him as the nature of thmgs will bear. " In the application 
of this principle, however, the colonists diilered widely 
among themselves. In the early days of New England, 
when the Puritan leaders had a clear field for their theories, 
with almost no external authority over them, common-law 
principles were repeatedly set aside in order to meet local 
requirements or carry out their own interpretation of Biblical 
teaching. Quaker theories had a similar effect in Pennsyl- 
vania. Indeed, there was no colony in which the common 
law was universally or rigidly followed. A system of law 
which had grown up gradually in an old country plainly 
could not be applied mechanically in a new community con- 
stantly facing problems quite unfamiliar to English jurists. 

In the eighteenth century, this tendency to modify the Increasing 
common law in accordance with local conditions was counter- of the corn- 
acted by two unportant influences. During this period strong ™°" •^^• 
pressure was brought to bear by the British government, 
which was now more careful to appoint provincial judges and 
attorneys-general who knew something about tlie common 
law and could be counted on to apply it so far as possible. 
The royal veto on colonial laws and the right of appeal 
from provincial courts to the Privy Council were also used 
for the same purpose. Meantime, entirely different mo- 
tives were helping to popularize the common law among 
the colonists. With the overthrow of the old charters, 
the problem of defending Enghsh liberty against abuse of 
the royal prerogative became more nearly Uke what it had 
been in England. More attention was, therefore, paid to 



346 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



The lawyer 
class. 



Influence of 

English 

statutes. 



Difficulties 
in adminis- 
tration. 



those provisions of the common law which had proved 
useful for this purpose in the past. Meantime, the lawyer 
class, at first weak and discredited, gradually increased 
in numbers and prestige. Many lawyers, especially in 
Pennsylvania and the South, were trained in the English 
Inns of Court; others came indirectly under the same 
influence. Those lawyers who took the popular side were 
soon making effective use of English law in defense of 
colonial rights. 

Accordmg to the orthodox theory, the only English 
law which took effect in any particular colony was the 
common law, so far as it was applicable to local conditions, 
and such statute law, chiefly for the enforcement or devel- 
opment of common-law principles, as had been enacted 
before the colony was founded. There were, however, 
some later English statutes, notably the Habeas Corpus Act 
of 1679 establishing new safeguards against arbitrary ar- 
rest, of which Americans were anxious to take advantage 
even though they were not strictly applicable in the colonies. 
Some of this legislation was reproduced in acts of the various 
colonial assemblies, though such acts were sometimes de- 
feated by the royal veto. Sometimes colonial judges put 
English statutes into effect without waiting for a specific 
provincial statute. In Maryland, particularly, the as- 
sembly insisted that the provincial judges should give the 
people the benefits of such English statutes as seemed 
applicable to local conditions. 

A friendly British critic declared in 1758 that the Amer- 
icans went too far in their acceptance of the English law, 
much of which was adapted to a past age or to England 
alone. "Certainly," he said, "our American brethren 
might have carried with them the privileges which make 
the glory and happiness of Englishmen" without burden- 
ing themselves unnecessarily with so much that was use- 
less or harmful in a new society. Judges also found it 



EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN IDEAS 347 

difficult to say what parts of the English law were applica- 
ble to colonial conditions and should therefore take effect 
in any particular case. On some common-law rights, how- Accepted 
ever, American opinion was practically unanimous. One p""^'p1<^S' 
was the right of trial by jury both in civil and criminal 
cases. Another was the privilege of securing a writ of ha- 
beas corpus to prevent arbitrary imprisonment. A third 
was the right of every subject not to be deprived of his 
property without some regular legal process. 

Thus in many aspects of American life, — in language. New 
government, and law, — colonial theory and practice were id^aT*^^° 
largely English. Yet this is only one side of the story. 
Closer study shows that Americans were after all devel- 
oping something quite different from the prevailmg Eng- 
Ush type. Even when inherited forms were preserved, - 
their real meaning was often changed. How did this come 
about? 

First of all, there is the familiar fact that a large pro- Desire for 
portion of those who went from the Old World to the New social order, 
did so because they were dissatisfied with the institutions 
— economic, political, religious — which they left behind. 
More or less consciously, many of them tried to establish 
the social order which they were setting up in America 
on new, and, as they thought, better, principles. Many 
pohtical experiments, of course, proved disappomting. New 
England Puritans and Pennsylvania Quakers had to adjust 
tliemselves more or less to the old traditions which they 
had tried to escape. Meantime, however, they had built 
into the foundations of American society some elements 
which resisted the unifying influence of imperial policies. 

The second, and perhaps most important, influence influence of 
making for differentiation grew out of the practical prob- environment. 
lems of colonization. Colonial promoters in England often 
had to establish in America, not the arrangements to which 
they were accustomed in England or which they personally 



348 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



The suffrage. 



Weakening 
of class 
distinctions. 



New theory 
of repre- 
sentation. 



preferred, but rather those which would be most attractive 
to settlers. When colonial assemblies began legislating 
about frontier conditions they often found little help in 
ancient precedents and so developed a new common law 
of their own. Again, some allowance must be made for 
the influence on American practices or ideals of the non- 
Enghsh unmigrants from Scotland, Ireland, and the Con- 
tinent, whose traditions were of quite a different sort. 
Finally, it must be remembered that, when English and 
American ways diverged, it was not always the American that 
moved farthest from the older English practice. So, for 
instance, obsolete forms of English speech have sometimes 
survived longer here than in England. 

"Americanizing" mfluences may be seen in almost 
every phase of provincial life, eitlier producmg new insti- 
tutions or modifying old ones. Representative government, 
for instance, did not work out in America quite as it did 
in England. In both cases, the suffrage was limited to the 
property-holdmg class, but the practical difference was 
very great. In an old English county, where estates were 
concentrated in a few hands, the limitation of suffrage to 
freeholders was a serious matter. In a new country', tlie 
opportunity to qualify as a freeholder was open to a much 
larger proportion of the population. So in spite of some 
class distinctions, a country in which almost any industrious 
white man could hope to own land tended to become dem- 
ocratic both socially and politically. Every colony had 
its "gentry," but they had no such prestige as the landed 
aristocracy in England. 

The relations between a representative and his con- 
stituents were also closer in America than in England, 
where a member of the House of Commons was not re- 
quired to be a resident of the district whicli elected him. 
An English v.-est-country constituency may still be rep- 
resented by a London lawyer, or a great seaport by 



AMERICAN POLITICAL IDEAS 349 

some country gentleman. For better or worse, Americans 
have come to think differently and the beginnings of the 
change go back to colonial times. In Massachusetts rep- 
resentatives had to be residents of the towns from which 
they were elected, and a Virginia burgess had at least to 
hold property in the county which he represented. Else- 
where the practice varied, but the tendency was to asso- 
ciate representatives witli their constituencies by requiring 
them to be either residents or property owners. So, for 
most Americans, the representation of the voters in a given ^ 
district came to mean their choice of one of themselves 
to speak for them in matters of taxation and public policy. 
The English theory, that any group of people could be 
"virtually" represented by some outsider in v/hose se- 
lection they might have had no part, naturally did not 
appeal to Americans when it was urged a little later in 
support of parliamentary taxation for the colonies. 

It has already been pointed out that, while English American 
constitutional law was more and more emphasizing the about con- 
absolute authority of Parliament and getting away from ^'^"ations 
the idea of constitutional limitations binding even upon 
Parliament itself, Americans were moving in tlie opposite \ \ 
direction. From the beginning they had been accustomed 
to legislatures which were limited in various ways, — some- 
times by the charters, sometimes by tlie necessity of con- 
forming to particular rules of English law. Such limi- 
tations were not merely theoretical; they were enforced 
by decisions of the Privy Council, which acted on appeals 
from colonial courts. Whether there were similar limita- 
tions on Parliament itself was a question not yet clearly 
thought out by most Americans. Some of them, however, 
had more or less definite notions of the empire as a quasi- 
federal system with a rough boundary line separating tlie 
legitimate authority of Parliament from that of the colonial 
legislatures. 



3SO 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



American 
local gov- 
ernment. 



Modifica- ^ 
tions of the 
common law. 



In local government, similar transforming influences 
were at work, though the results varied widely from one 
colony to another, Virginia, for instance, keeping most closely 
to the English model. The New England town meeting 
went far beyond the English parish both in the free han- 
dling of local business and in its power to influence or check 
the policies of the central government. In the middle 
provinces, county administration was brought more fully 
under popular control. In New York the justices had to 
share their authority with supervisors elected by the in- 
habitants of each township. In Pennsylvania, the voters 
of each county elected or nominated not only members of 
the assembly but also such officers as sheriff, coroner, and 
county commissioners. 

In the matter of personal and property rights also, 
American thought drifted from the old moormgs. Even 
when claiming for themselves all possible benefits of the 
common law, they also discarded much which did not 
appeal to them or seemed unsuited to local needs. The 
New Englanders, for instance, decided that the prosperity 
of their settlements would be secured best by a wide dis- 
tribution of property in land. Accordingly, when a landowner 
died without leaving a will, the law did not, as in England, 
give all the real estate to the eldest son, but divided it among 
the children, the eldest son receiving only a double portion. 
In the case of Winthrop v. Lechmere, decided in 1728, the 
English Privy Council set aside the Connecticut law on 
this subject, on the ground that it was contrary to the law 
of England, and if this action had been taken generally, 
New England land titles would have been thrown into 
confusion. Fortunately this policy was not carried out 
and later decisions practically gave the New Englanders 
a free hand in this respect. Another example of more or 
less radical departure from English models is to be found 
in the penal codes of the colonies. Though harsh enough, 



CHURCH AND STATE 35 1 

from a modern point of view, they were generally less so 
than the contemporary English practice, which still imposed 
the death penalty for various minor offenses. Something 
was done to simplify legal procedure and make justice less 
expensive for the poor man. New Englanders especially 
prided themselves on certain improvements, such as public 
registration of land titles, the use of English in all pro- 
ceedings, and in general making justice "easy, quick, and 
cheap. " 

In the matter of safeguards for free speech and a free Freedom of 
press, progress was made on both sides of the Atlantic. ^^^ ^'^^^^' 
The policy of requiring books to be licensed before pub- 
lication was given up both in England and in America, In 
one important matter, however, American practice antici- 
pated that of England. In the Zenger case, already de- 
scribed, a New York jury attracted attention by asserting 
its right to decide whether the publication was false and 
malicious instead of merely accepting the judge's decision. 
This was in 1735. In 1784, the great English la-wyer, } 
Erskine, defended substantially this doctrine in a famous 
libel suit, though it was not until 1792 that it was definitely ] 
established by act of Parliament. 

One feature of American society which has always American 
interested foreign observers is the status of religion and church and 
more particularly of religion in its relation to the state, ^^ate. 
The development of American thought on this subject 
was gradual and there was no generally accepted theory 
before the Revolution. Nevertheless, the tendency was 1 
certainly against state control. Even in New England and 
Virginia, where such control was most effective, it was 
clearly growing weaker. The various influences at work to 
bring about religious liberty and the separation of church 
and state have been noted in the history of particular 
colonies or groups of colonies; but the main features of the 
development may be recalled briefly. 



352 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



Tendency 

toward 

religious 

liberty. 



Conditions 
at the close 
of the 
colonial era. 



Sometimes religious liberty was advanced because leaders 
like Roger Wniiams and William Penn thought out a defi- 
nite theory of freedom and applied it in the colonies which 
they founded or helped to found. Elsewhere, as in most 
of the proprietary provinces, a more or less hberal policy 
toward rehgious dissenters was adopted because it was 
"good business"; laud was worthless v>fithout people to 
work it and the promise of religious liberty was likely to 
attract some particularly sohd and hard-working immi- 
grants. So also the AngUcan authorities of the South found 
it worth while to allow a larger religious liberty to the dis- 
senters whose settlements guarded their Indian frontiers. 
Sometimes the ruling element in a colony had ecclesias- 
tical views opposed to those of the home government. In 
such cases dissatisfied groups could often make trouble in 
England. The Catholic Lord Baltimore might have pursued 
a tolerant policy in any case; but in 1648, with an ultra- 
Protestant government in England, he could hardly have 
done anything else. Certainly the appeals of Anglicans 
and Quakers to the authorities in London helped to break 
down the rigid Puritan systems of Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut. Practical expediency was probably more decisive 
than theory in the progress of religious freedom 

The outcome, at any rate, is clear. Actual persecution 
for religious opinion almost disappeared. The one group 
which still remained under the ban was the Catholics, and 
some of the legislation against them was extremely harsh, 
notably in New York and Maryland, but it was probably 
less so in practice than on paper and the number actually 
interfered with was comparatively small. Furthermore, 
there were several provinces with no state church at all, 
including Rliode Island and all the middle provinces except 
part of New York. In these colonies, with their great 
variety of religious sects, men were gradually accepting the 
now familiar American philosophy that the state should be 



THE SPIRIT OF DISSENT 353 

neutral in its attitude toward competing religious bodies. 
Their example also helped dissenters in those provinces 
wliich still clung to the state-church idea. 

Scarcely less significant than this drift away from church Relative 
establishments was the relative weakness in America of ^^^'^der °^ 
the churches whose evolution was most closely associated churches, 
with the older society of Europe. The Church of England, 
as weU as the Catholics and to a lesser extent the Lu- 
therans, cherished institutions and forms of worship which 
preserved the sense of continuity in the organized life of 
the church. So far as these institutions were transplanted 
to America, they carried v/ith them something of the old 
soil; modes of thought and feelmg which kept men more 
conscious than they might otherwise have been of then: 
kinship with European civilization. Respect for authority, 
deference to what Edmund Burke called the "early received 
and uniformly continued sense of mankind," — these were 
mental attitudes which some men, at any rate, were likely 
to carry over from religion into their political and social 
philosophy. 

The position of the radical Protestants — such as strength of 
the Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists, and the minor [^g spinT*^ 
German sects — was quite different. In Europe they were 
protesting minorities, fighting for life, with the main forces 
of national life against them. Their peculiar ideals were 
indeed born in Europe; but tliey found in America a more 
congenial soil and the European background meant much 
less to them. They cared Uttle for venerable liturgies, or 
established orders, or divine right in kings and bishops. 
In America, many of these sects now had a free field for 
experimentation. Their pet theories were transmuted into 
the working philosophy of men who shaped public opinion 
and sometimes, as in New England and Penns3dvania, 
controlled the government. By 1776 there was not a single 
one of the old thirteen colonies in which a combination of 



354 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



Effect of 
westward 
expansion. 



The making 
of an 
American. 



these groups could not claim a majority of the population. 
Such conditions certainly helped to make American ideals 
different from those prevailing in Europe, not only in 
religion but in other phases of popular philosophy. 

Obviously the differentiation of Americans from Eng- 
lishmen went on much faster in certain regions and in 
certain social groups than in others. A Virginia planter, 
educated in religion and letters by Anglican clergymen, cor- 
responding with relatives and business agents in the old 
country, and priding himself on his broad acres, was much 
nearer to his English contemporaries than the heterogene- 
ous population of the middle region, or the Puritan farmers 
of Massachusetts and Connecticut who had not quite for- 
gotten the repubhcan spirit of the Cromwellian era. Most 
American of all in our modern sense were the newer com- 
munities of the interior. As the seaboard settlements de- 
veloped with age a new conservatism of their own, the 
pioneering spirit had found its outlet on the westward- 
moving frontier. Here again there was land to be had 
almost for the asking; capital was useful, but individual 
energy and courage were less handicapped in competition 
with inherited wealth and social status. Here also, some- 
times for better but sometimes also for worse, men lost 
touch with the traditions and conventions of an older so- 
ciety. Separated from their neighbors on the seaboard, 
they were still further removed from their cousins across 
the sea. Finally, it was in the back country that men of 
purely English stock found themselves most generally out- 
numbered by new immigrants from Scotland, Ireland, 
and the Continent, with their varied religious and social 
traditions. 

On the eve of the Revolution an able observer, him- 
self a recent immigrant, wrote a well-known book, called 
Letters from an American Farmer, in which he tried to show 
what it was that made an American different from a Euro- 



THE MAKING OF AN AMERICAN 35$ 

pean. What struck him particularly was the tendency of 
American life to break down old distinctions of class, nation- 
ality, and religion. He noted the "pleasing uniformity of 
decent competence" which prevailed here, contrasting it with 
a European society made up of landlords and tenants. "This 
fair country alone is settled by freeholders, the possessors 
of the soil they cultivate, members of the government they 
obey." Coming as a poor immigrant, the European peasant 
found his labor in demand and was able before long to buy 
land on his own account. Ownership of land and a liberal 
rule of naturalization transformed him into a seK-respecting 
citizen and voter. Mutual tolerance also developed through i 
contact with men of widely different conditions. "If they 1 
are peaceable subjects, and are industrious, what is it to 
their neighbors how and in what manner they think fit 
to address their prayers to the Supreme Being?" In this 
atmosphere of economic, political, and religious freedom, 
the European became an American, "a new man, who 
acts upon new principles." For provincial America as a 
whole this picture was overoptimistic. It does not, for in- 
stance, take into account the very different outlook of a 
conservative Puritan merchant in Boston or a t)/pical slave- 
owning planter on the James. It does, however, fairly 
represent the new America which was everywhere beginnmg 
to assert itseK against the more conservative spirit of the 
seaboard. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, Colonial Period, chs. VII, IX. Becker, Beginnings General 
of the American People, ch. V. Greene, Provincial America, chs. 
V, XII, XIII, XVIII. Lecky, W. E. H., England in the Eighteenth 
Century, III, 294-324. Trevelyan, G. O., American Revolution 
I, 12-56, 63-69. 

Hart, Contemporaries, II, pts. Ill, IV, and nos. 47, 48, 52. Selected 
Turner, Frontier in American History, chs. I, III. Roosevelt, 



356 



ENGLISH AND AMERICAN WAYS 



Geographic 
influeace9. 
The frontier. 



Political 
theory and 
practice. 



English law 
in America. 



Religion. 
Social 
ideals and 
practices. 



American 
culture. 



Winning of the West, I, ch. V. Semple, E. C, Afnerican History 
and Its Geographic Conditions, chs. Ill, IV. St. John de Crdvecceur, 
H., Letters from an American Farmer (convenient Everyman 
edition). 

Channing, United States, III, 74-76, and his Town and County 
Government {Johns Hopkins Studies, II, no. 10). Cheyney, Euro- 
pean Background, 313-315. Frothingham, R., Rise of the Republic, 
chs. I-IV. Greene, E. B., Provincial Governor, chs. VIII-X. 
Howard, G. E., Local Cotistitiitional History of the United States, I. 
Mcllwain, C. H., High Court of Parliament, chs. IV, V. McKinley, 
A. E., Stiff rage Franchise in the English Colonies (summary in 
ch. XV). Merriam, C. E., American Political Theories, ch. I. 

Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, I (articles by 
Reinsch, Siou.ssat, and Andrews). Chalmers, G., Opinions of 
Eminent Lawyers (see index under Common Law). On lawyers 
and their training, see Warren, C. W., History of the American 
Bar, pt. I; Stille, C. J., John Dickinson, ch. II; and Bedwell, 
American Middle Templars {Am. Hist. Review, XXV, 680-689). 

Channing, United States, II, ch. XV. Andrews, C. M,, Colonial 
Folkways. Earle, A. M., Home Life in Colonial Days; Colonial 
Dames and Good Wives; and Stage Coach and Tavern Days. Eggle- 
ston, E., Transit of Civilization, and his articles in Century Maga- 
zine, 1S84-1885. Fisher, S. G,, Men, Women, and Manners in 
Colonial Times. Mereness, N. D., Travels in the Colonies (espe- 
cially Gordon and the Moravians). 

Cambridge History of American Literature, I, bk. I. Tyler, 
American Literature, II, ch. XVIII. 



CHAPTER XVI 

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST AND THE PASSING 
OF NEW FRANCE 

The great fact of American history during the first British 
half of the eighteenth century is the process of expansion, '^''P'^"^^°°- 
by which the British provinces preempted not only the 
seaboard from Nova Scotia to Georgia but also the eastern 
slopes of the Appalacliian system. With the exception of 
two struggling settlements, Nova Scotia in the north and 
Georgia in the south, this expansion had come about through 
the development of older provinces rather than the organ- 
ization of new ones. The work could not have been done, 
however, without the help of many thousand new immigrants, 
who found on these upland frontiers opportunities no longer 
open to them in the region occupied by the seventeenth- 
century pioneers. 

Along with tliis solid colonization of the "Old West," English 
as Turner has called it to distinguish it from the newer beyoTd'fhe 
West beyond the mountains, there was a more adventurous Aiieghemes. 
and picturesque kind of enterprise which broke through 
or passed around the mountain barrier to the "western 
waters" of the Mississippi valley. Before the end of the 
seventeenth century, a few daring spirits among the English 
colonists had ventured into the great "hinterland" to trade 
with the Indians in the Lake region and in the valleys of 
the Ohio and its southern tributaries. Then and for the 
next half century, these English hunters, trappers, and 
traders, though active enough to disturb their French and 
Spanish rivals, were still quite insignificant in numbers 
and worked at a great disadvantage, often separated from 

357'' 



3S8 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 

their bases of supplies by several hundred miles of wilderness. 
Gradually, however, the pioneer settlements of western 
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the Carolinas were putting 
another face on the situation. Here were new and more 
convenient points of approach to the trans- Allegheny re- 
gion, and here also were trained, in large part, the men who 
were to form the skirmish line of the English advance into 
the Mississippi valley. So the process of expansion already 
described leads naturally to the next and most dramatic 
chapter in colonial history, the decisive struggle of the 
English-speaking people with their two great Latin rivals 
for predominance in North America. 
The French The more formidable of these two antagonists was, 

of course, France, whose pioneers had been active in the 
trans-Allegheny country since the days of La Salle, Mar- 
quette, and Iberville. In the north were the Lake posts — 
Fort Frontenac at the outlet of Lake Ontario, Niagara, 
Detroit, Mackinaw, Green Bay. The western line was held 
by New Orleans and a few struggling settlements farther 
up the Mississippi, including the villages of the Illinois 
country and a post on the Wabash. On the GuK, facing 
the Spaniards in Florida, was the French outpost of Mobile. 
The white population of this vast region was still insig- 
nificant. There were certainly fewer white people between 
the Alleghenies and the Mississippi in 1750 than in one of the 
smaller English colonies. Even in this meager population 
many were not real home makers, but more or less tempo- 
rary occupants — ofiicials, traders, soldiers, and missionaries. 
White women were scarce and many of the younger gener- 
ation in the French villages were the children of Indian 
mothers. A few farmers in the Illinois country were raising 
wheat and shipping flour down the river to New Orleans; 
but the dominating interest of this western country was the 
fur trade. It was the fur trade also in which the English 
adventurers beyond the mountains were chiefly interested. 



COMMERCIAL RIVALRIES 359 

Gradually a larger issue dawned upon Englishmen and French and 
Frenchmen alike. From the French point of view, the p^^H of 
Ohio valley was an essential link between the colonies on ^^^^• 
the St. Lawrence and those on the Mississippi; the loss of 
that link would be a serious blow to the integrity of their 
North American empire. The English were equally sure 
that French settlements on the western rivers which rose 
on the Appalachian plateau would hem in their natural 
advance from the seaboard. Thus, as so often happens in 
history, both sides had aggressive plans for expansion; but 
each declared with more or less sincerity that its own aims 
were primarily defensive, the securing of legitimate interests 
against unjust aggression. 

Important as this western problem was from an Ameri- The western 
can point of view, it is necessary to remember always that, and wwld 
for the rulers of the British Empire, it was only one of many p°'**^cs- 
threads in the complicated web of world politics. Still, 
as in the era of the Restoration, the first object of British 
foreign policy was the advancement of sea power and the pro- 
motion of commerce. In the first half of the seventeenth Struggle for 
century, the leaders in the race for commercial supremacy supremacy, 
were the Dutch, who had destroyed the old Portu- 
guese monopoly of Asiatic commerce and won also a large 
share in the carrying trade, of both the European nations 
and their American dependencies. These achievements 
naturally excited the jealousy of the other two great mari- 
time powers of western Europe. France and England 
still had much to learn from the Dutch; but their superi- 
ority in population, territory, and other physical resources, 
if properly organized, was bound to tell in the end. To 
provide such organization through governmental action 
became, therefore, a prime object of British and French 
statesmanship. Trade was to be developed not merely by 
individual initiative, but through protective legislation, diplo- 
macy, and even war. A commerce thus built up by the 



360 



THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 



Commerce 
and war. 



The struggle 
in Asia, 
Africa, aad 
America. 



Sea power. 



The conflict 
postponed. 



state v/as expected also to work for the state. Trade prop- 
erly con trolled would bring revenue to tlie Crown; revenue 
would support armies and navies; and, to close tlie circle 
of commercial imperialism, armies and navies could be used 
in defending and promoting trade. Of course this reason- 
ing practically carried with it the notion, unfortunately 
not yet dead, of international trade as a kind of warfare 
rather than a mutually helpful exchange of services. 

In this kind of international competition, England and 
France soon set a pace with which a small country like 
the Netherlands could hardly keep up, and tlie Dutch 
gradually lost ground. Meantime, the conflict between the 
two leading powers became more intense and far-reaching. 
In India, Enghsh and French companies set up "facto- 
ries," or agencies, through which they tried to control 
the European trade in Eastern wares. The African coast 
furnished ports of call on the way to the Indies and above 
all a field for strenuous competition in the slave trade. 
From the governmental point of view even America was 
primarily worth while, not because it furnished territory 
for European settlements but because political control of 
territory would carry with it control of certain American 
products: fish, fm*, and naval stores from the North; tobacco, 
sugar, and dyestuffs from the South. Finally, sea power was 
essential to protect these distant trade routes, and this 
meant not only expanding navies, but naval stations at 
strategic points like Gibraltar on the Mediterranean, Louis- 
burg on the Canadian coast, and certain ports in the West 
Indies. 

Notwithstanding these intense rivalries, actual warfare 
was avoided for a quarter century after the peace of Utrecht. 
Both the French and British governments had been heavily 
burdened by the War of the Spanish Succession and both 
were made cautious by internal difficulties. France had an 
infant king and was troubled by endless court intrigues, 



SPAIN AND ENGLAND 36 1 

while in England the Whigs were trying to avoid foreign 
complications and keep down taxes until their new German 
dynasty could be domesticated. So both parties were will- 
mg to postpone the conflict, though each kept a jealous 
eye upon the other. 

Meantime, Spain still played an important, though sec- Position of 
ondary, part in the game of world politics. After a long war ^orid "^ 
in which the Spanish crown and its dependencies in three politics, 
continents had been fought over by the rival powers of 
Europe, the spoils had been divided between the contending 
parties. So far as trade and colonies were concerned, England 
reaped the chief advantage; but a younger branch of the 
French Bourbon monarchy was established in Spain. Though 
Frenchmen and Spaniards were not always sympathetic, 
they were drawn together by this dynastic relation and by 
their common hostility towards England, then- most dan- 
gerous rival. 

In the century and a half which ended with the treaty of Spanish 
Utrecht, Spain had accumulated a long list of grievances fgainst 
against the English. The freebooting expeditions of Hawkins ^"sland. 
and Drake, the conquest of Jamaica, and finally the humili- 
ating loss of Gibraltar — these were a few of the old scores 
which the rulers of Spain would have been glad to pay off. 
Even since the peace, they had much to complain of; Brit- 
ish seamen were not content with the trading privileges 
given them by the treaty and were constantly colliding with 
the customs officials in the Spanish colonies. On the North 
American mainland, the whole process of English coloni- 
zation, especially in the Soutli, seemed nothing less than 
a series of encroachments on Spanish territory; and the 
occupation of Georgia threatened to crovx^d Spain altogether 
from the Atlantic seaboard. Spain also had its grievances 
against the French, who occupied the Gulf coast at New 
Orleans and Mobile; but these were not sufficient to pre- 
vent the two powers from drawing together at certain 



362 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 

The Family times for defense against a common enemy. So it came 
Compact. ^ about that the Bourbon governments of France and Spain 
y united in the Family Compact of 1733, which was aimed 
^ prunarily at England. 
Anglo- Six years later the friction between British seamen and 

Spanish War ^^^q Spanish customs guards caused so much excitement 
in Great Britain that the peace-loving ministry of Walpole 
was pushed reluctantly into a new war with Spain. Even 
before the declaration was known in America, Admiral Ver- 
non had attacked and captured Porto Bello on the northern 
side of the Isthmus of Panama. Reenforcements were sent 
him at once and plans made for an extensive campaign against 
Spanish America. The outcome was disappointing, but 
there was one notable achievement worthy of the Elizabethan 
seamen, — the voyage of Captain Anson in the Centurion. 
Like Drake, Anson sailed up the Pacific coast of South 
America, preying upon the enemy's commerce as he went, 
and then crossed the Pacific Ocean. After spending several 
months in Chinese waters and capturing one of the great 
Spanish treasure ships, he returned to England in 1744. He 
brought back only a fraction of his original force, but he had 
dealt Spain a serious blow. The North American colonies 
also had a part in this war. The British in Georgia under 
Oglethorpe made an unsuccessful expedition against St. 
Augustine; and in 1742 the Spaniards landed a force on the 
Georgia coast, which was repulsed after hard fighting. The 
northern colonies were called on to furnish men and sup- 
plies for the campaigns in Central and South America; and 
in New England, at least, they responded with some 
enthusiasm. Privateering, through its combination of busi- 
ness with war, was especially attractive to colonial capitalists 
and seamen. 
Spain The Spanish war was, however, soon overshadowed by 

France. ^ the Conflict with France, which had already been help- 
ing her ally so far as she could without being technically 



WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION 363 

at war. The French declaration of war in 1744 was hastened 
by events in Europe which seemed to have little relation to 
the New World. The Anglo-Spanish War had hardly begun, 
when Frederick the Great, the ambitious young King of 
Prussia, seized the Austrian province of Silesia. The integrity 
of the Austrian dominions had been guaranteed by the Euro- 
pean powers, including France, Great Britain, and Prussia 
herself; but France had her eye on the Austrian Netherlands, 
and soon allied herself with Prussia. For England, it was not 
merely a question of observing her treaty obligations; her 
own interests were directly affected. She could not afford 
to have an aggressive maritime power like France estab- 
lishing its hold on the coast provinces of the Netherlands. 
So the conflict both in Europe and in America was largely 
one of sea power. No one understood this more clearly than 
Frederick himself, who was not only a great soldier but a 
keen student of politics. He saw in this persistent antago- 
nism of the two rival maritime powers the controlling fac- 
tor in European politics, on which he could count with 
confidence to prevent united action in defense of Austria. 

In this European War of the Austrian Succession, the com- War of the 
bination to which England belonged met with serious reverses, succession. 
Prussia kept its grip on Silesia and the French armies ad- 
vanced into the Netherlands. In 1745 the uprising of the 
Jacobites under the "Young Pretender" gave the British 
government some anxious moments, though the rebels were 
defeated in the battle of Culloden. At sea, the British grad- 
ually established their superiority over the French; but they 
failed to use this advantage for large enterprises in Amer- 
ica. There both sides made extravagant claims, but neither 
was quite ready to force the issue. 

The outstanding event of the war in America was the The war in 
New England expedition against Louisburg, the fortress Louisburg. 
on Cape Breton Island, built by the French after the surrender 
of Acadia. Louisburg was the most important French post 



364 THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 

on the seaboard, both for the defense of the St. Lawrence 
gateway, and for more aggressive purposes. Under its shel- 
ter, the French fisheries developed so fast as to arouse the 
anxiety of the New Englanders, and connections were kept 
up with the Acadians in Nova Scotia which were quite 
inconsistent with their new EngUsh allegiance. In time 
of war, Louisburg became more formidable still. From 
its safe harbor, French privateers sailed out from time to 
time with disastrous results to New England traders and 
fishermen. It was also a convenient base for military and 
naval expeditions against the neighboring colonies. To get 
rid of this "thorn in the flesh," Governor William Shirley 
of Massachusetts proposed to the House of Representatives 
in secret session a plan for the capture of the fortress. The 
assembly hesitated but the plan was finally approved. Witli 
some difiiculty, Shirley secured the cooperation of Commo- 
dore Warren of the British navy with a few ships from the 
West Indies. New England, however, made the largest con- 
tribution, including the commander of the expedition, 
William PeppereU of Kittery, Maine. Pepperell was a man 
of varied experience and good sense, but, like most of his 
associates, without much military experience. Frqpi the 
point of view of a military expert, this amateur enterprise 
was quite reckless, and it would doubtless have failed if the 
French commander and his men had done their duty. 
Actually, however, Yankee energy, aided by sheer good luck, 
won in spite of all the rules, and on June 17, 1745, Louis- 
burg was taken. 
Indecisive Inspired by this achievement, Shirley now urged upon 

operations. ^^ British ministry a much more ambitious project for the 
complete conquest of Canada. Unfortunately his corre- 
spondent, Newcastle, was too mucli occupied with other 
matters and lacked tlie imagination whicii a few years later 
made Pitt the great imperial statesman of his time. So the 
last years of "King George's War" passed with no events of 



DIPLOMATIC PROBLEMS 365 

real importance. The French attempted to avenge the blow 
at Louisburg, but their fleets were baffled, first by storms and 
later by the British navy. In the Mohawk valley the 
French agent, Joncaire, and the British agent, William 
Johnson, were playing a close game for tiie support of the 
Iroquois. On the New England frontiers there was the 
old dismal story of French and Indian raids, inflicting much 
distress but producing little permanent effect. 

By 1748 nearly everybody was tired of the war. Fred- Treaty of 
erick the Great was content with peace and Silesia, while ^nef'1^48' 
France and England had fought so evenly that both were 
ready to go back to the conditions before the war. This 
meant the return of Louisburg, to the great disgust of the 
New England people, who saw all their efforts go for notliing. 
A serious effort was made by the British govermnent to 
keep it, but France was equally determined and had, besides, 
a strong position in the Netlierlands which she would not 
give up without compensation. For British sea power, 
the exclusion of France from the Netherlands seemed even 
more important than the keeping of Louisburg; inciden- 
tally also, the British East India Company recovered Ma- 
dras, which had been taken by the French. So far as 
America was concerned, the war settled notliing. 

The diplomatists next took up the task of trying to Diplomacy, 
settle the conflicting claims of the two nations in the West, xhe^ baute 
and on the Acadian frontier. Commissioners appointed of the maps, 
for this purpose met in Paris, among them Governor Shir- 
ley, who could give first-hand information on American 
conditions and the American point of view. There was 
another battle of the maps; extravagant claims were made 
on both sides, and the spirit of compromise was utterly 
lacking. So the negotiations came to nothing. Colonial 
officials on both sides urged thoroughgoing measures, but 
their home governments were more conservative and tl'iC 
decisive struggle approached without effective preparation 



RIVALRY ON THE SEABOARD 367 

on either side. When war came, the opening scenes were 
overseas in India and America, 

The points of hostile contact, where the territorial claims Points of 
and trading interests of the French and English met, were contact. 
many. Four were especially important on the North Ameri- Acadia and 
can continent. The first was on the seaboard, where the / 
English at Halifax were watching the French at Louisburg. / 
That Acadia had been duly ceded by Louis XIV in the 
treaty of Utrecht was one of the few English claims which 
France was willing to concede, but what was Acadia? To 
England it meant not only the present peninsular province 
of Nova Scotia, but also much additional territory stretch- 
ing northward and westward to the St. Lawrence basin. 
The French, on the contrary, proposed to confine Acadia 
to a small tract on the peninsula. Both sides took steps 
to enforce their theories. The British began in earnest 
the long-neglected colonization of Nova Scotia, and by 
1752 the new town of Halifax had about four thousand 
people, though this British element was still outnumbered 
by the Acadian French. Meantime, the French not only 
kept up their religious and political connections with the 
Acadians, but established the fort of Beausejour on the 
narrow neck of the peninsula. The British, equally de- 
termined, fortified Beaubassin, only a few miles away, mak- 
ing at the same time new efforts to secure the allegiance 
of the Acadian farmers. 

A second debatable region lay along the waterway The Hudson- v 
which connects New York with Montreal. The southern wat^may.''*'^ '^ 
part of that line, formed by the Hudson River, was defi- 
nitely British for a short distance above Albany. Its north- 
ern section, the Richelieu River, was quite as definitely 
French. Between these two sections was the disputed 
area, the portage from the Hudson to Lake George and 
the region about that lake and Lake Champlain. The 
French had an outpost at Crown Point on Lake Champlain; 



368 



THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 



The Great 
Lakes. Os- 
wego and 

Niagara. 



The Ohio 

valley. 



but the New Yorkers were less enterprising and a fort built 
at Saratoga was abandoned in 1747. The French advance 
on this line was a serious matter for the New Englanders, 
whose pioneer settlements on the upper Connecticut could 
easily be reached by raiding expeditions from Crown Point. 

The third field of international rivalry, the Great Lakes 
basin, with its rich fur trade, was approached by the two 
competing nations on converging lines. The French had 
taken the lead by way of the St. Lawrence and Ottawa 
rivers; their strategic points were Fort Frontenac, Niagara, 
and Detroit. The English moved somewhat later by the 
Mohawk valley to Oswego on Lake Ontario; but in the 
second quarter of the eighteenth century they gained dis- 
tinctly on the French. The treaty of Utrecht recognized 
British suzerainty over the Iroquois, v/hich was exploited 
for more than it was worth, as a basis for British claims to 
the West. The post at Oswego soon did a more thriving 
business than that at Niagara. Yet the French always 
regarded the Oswego traders as trespassers and still hoped 
to bring the Iroquois over to their side. 

The youngest, but soon to become the most urgent, 
of these frontier issues turned on the control of the Ohio 
valley. A century and more of western enterprise gave 
the French a fair claim by right of occupation to the upper 
Lakes and the line of the Mississippi; but, when peace was 
made in 1748, the only safe communication between Canada 
and Louisiana was the long and difficult northern route. 
The shorter and easier thoroughfare of the Ohio was blocked 
at its eastern end; for the portages connecting that river 
with the lower Lake region and the St. La\\Tence were dom- 
inated by the Iroquois. This dhficulty became more se- 
rious as new English pioneers pressed forward into the 
Mississippi basin. In Pennsylvania and Virginia especially, 
men of wealth and influence were planning systematically 
for the exploitation of western trade and western lands. 



THE FORKS OF THE OHIO 369 

The forks of the Ohio, where the Monongahela from the 
south and the Allegheny from the north jom their forces, 
lay within the charter lines of Pennsylvania; but the Vir- 
ginians, remembering the "west and northwest" clause 
in their charter of 1609, put in a counterclaim. Though 
these dissensions hurt the British cause, enough was being 
done on that side to cause the French serious anxiety. 

The Canadian governor at this critical moment was French expe- 
the Marquis de la Galissoniere, a distinguished naval officer, ohio!' *° ^ ^ 
but also a statesman, clear-sighted and capable of large 
views. While the diplomatists were discussing documents 
in Paris, Galissoniere was doing what he could to strengthen 
the French case. It was by his orders that Celoron de 
Bienville (or Blainville) made a celebrated journey from 
Lake Erie to the Allegheny River, then down the Allegheny 
and Ohio to the Miami, then up the Miami and down the 
Maumee to Lake Erie again. The lead plates which he left 
at various points in this long circuit, setting forth the French 
title to the valley, hardly affected the course of history; 
but the information which he brought back was discourag- 
ing and called for speedy action. Ever3^where Celoron 
found English traders or evidences of their activity and 
influence among the Indians; but his force was too weak 
for anything more than a protest. 

Meantime new forward moves were being made by tlie The Ohio 
British. In 1749 tlie Ohio Company, a group of influential Company. 
Virginians, obtained from the ICing a grant of half a million 
acres on the Ohio, where they were to plant a colony. The 
next year they sent out a seasoned pioneer, Christopher 
Gist, who was able to get the cooperation of George Cro- 
ghan, the ablest of the Pennsylvania traders. On the Ohio 
and the Miami these agents were well received. Especially 
encouraging was the development about PickawiUany, on 
the Miami, where the great cliief of the Miami tribe, a 
firm friend of the British, ruled over a population of five 



370 



THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 



New French 
forts. 



Instructions 
to colonial 
governors. 



thousand Indians. Here the British had a fort, the cen- 
ter of a rapidly growing trade. Before long, however, the 
tide began to run against them, and in the next five years 
disaster followed disaster, largely because mutual jealous- 
ies and a generally provincial outlook prevented the British 
colonies from acting effectively together. 

In 1752 the French dealt a severe blow at British in- 
fluence when a party of western Indians, led by a French 
trader from Wisconsin, broke up the post at Pickawillany. 
The next year the new French governor, Duquesne, took 
up the task of securing the northern approach to the Ohio 
from Lake Erie. Forts were built at Presque Isle, now Erie, 
Pennsylvania, and on French Creek, a tributary of the 
Allegheny. Here tlie work was interrupted by disease and 
the approach of winter, just as the English began to wake 
up to the new danger. 

Late in the summer of 1753, Lord Holder nesse, the 
secretary of state specially responsible for the colonies, 
sent a circular to the colonial governors warning them of 
French encroachments. They were not to take the offen- 
sive, but if the enemy invaded territory "within the un- 
doubted limits" of the British dominions, they must "re- 
pell force by force. " This continued to be the official theory 
of the British government during the next two years. The 
French position was essentially the same in principle, but 
the "undoubted limits" asserted by one nation were quite 
as confidently denied by the other. Of the governors to 
whom this message came, the most alert and aggressive 
were William Shirley in Massachusetts, Horatio Sharpe in 
Maryland, and Robert Dinwiddle in Virginia. Dinwiddle 
was a Scotchman, ardently patriotic, with plenty of fight- 
ing spirit, though not always a skillful politician. The lack of 
enterprise displayed by the Pennsylvania government gave 
Dinwiddle his opportunity, and he determined on a mission 
to warn the French out of the Ohio country. 



WASHINGTON ON THE OHIO 371 

The agent selected for this difficult task was George Washing- 
Washington, then a young man of twenty-one. Though to'\he"ohio? 
his family was connected with the Virginia gentry, he was 
already familiar with the hardships of the wilderness, and 
accustomed to dealing with the Indians. He was also 
associated with the group of men who had organized the 
Ohio Company and were interested in the occupation of 
western lands. In the late autumn of 1753, Washington set 
out on his long journey. At the trading post of Wills Creek 
on the Potomac he was joined by Christopher Gist, with 
whom he pushed on to the forks of the Ohio. After con- 
ferences on the way with the Indians and with the French 
agent, Joncaire, he delivered his message to the commandant 
at Fort Le Boeuf , only to be answered by a flat defiance. 

Diplomacy had failed, and prompt action was necessary Fort 
if the British were to keep a foothold in the Ohio valley. French and 
Preparations were, therefore, made for a British fort at wlllT.^^' 
the forks; but the small detachment sent to hold the po- 
sition had to give way before a superior French force, which 
proceeded to establish its own post of Fort Duquesne. The 
main body of the Virginians, under Washington, moved 
forward to recover the lost ground and on the way fell in 
with a French reconnoitering party. A skirmish followed 
in which the French commander was killed, but before 
long Washington's party was attacked and defeated by a 
stronger detachment from Fort Duquesne. For the time 
being, the British had to withdraw from the disputed 
region. 

By October, 1754, the news of this frontier skirmish and British 
its results had reached the British government. The New- ^754^ 
castle ministry, representing the old Whig traditions, was 
disposed to uphold British claims at the various points in 
dispute, but had strong reasons for not beginning a Euro- 
pean war. George II had territory in Hanover which lay 
between two hostile neighbors, France and Prussia, and 



372 



THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 



The French 
plan. 



British 
reverses in 
1755. 



there was also danger that if Great Britain appeared to 
be the aggressor, Spain might be drawn into the fight on 
the French side. The British game, therefore, was to treat 
the fighting in America as a local affair, which might stUl 
be settled without actual war between the two sovereign 
governments. If, however, war could not be averted, then, 
if possible, the odium of beginning it must be thrown on the 
French. Meantime, the American representatives of the 
British Crown must be supported by miUtary force against 
alleged encroachments, and a strong force of regular soldiers 
was, therefore, sent to America under the conmiand of 
General Braddock. The lost ground on the Ohio was to be 
recovered by the capture of Fort Duquesne and in the Lake 
region there was to be an attack on Niagara. On the Nova 
Scotia border, the French were to be driven from Fort 
Beausejour and the King's rebelUous Acadian subjects re- 
duced to submission. The danger of incursions from the 
north was to be guarded against by the seizure of Crown 
Point. 

Unfortunately for this program, the French government 
felt itself equally entitled to use military force in support 
of its claims and prepared a counter expedition of regular 
troops. To permit this reenforcement of the French in 
America was to neutralize the whole British plan of opera- 
tions. Therefore, in spite of the nominal peace between 
the two nations, the British fleet under Boscawen was 
ordered to intercept the French transports on their way 
aaross the Atlantic. This plan miscarried, however, and 
the main French fleet reached Canada safely. All the Brit- 
ish commander could do was to engage and defeat a few 
detached vessels. 

The failure of this naval campaign opened a year of 
almost continuous defeat for the British arms in America. 
Braddock met tlie colonial governors in conference and 
worked out the details of the general plan agreed upon in 



Bli/U)DOCK'S DEFEAT 373 

England. The one entirely successful operation was the 
capture of Beausejour, followed by the tragic removal of , 
the so-called "neutral French" from Acadia, where, with \ 
all their virtues, they were a constant menace to the British 
colonists. On the Hudson-Champlain line, the Indian 
agent William Johnson, and the New England colonel 
Phineas Lyman, commanded the English forces, which es- 
tablished new posts at Fort Edward on the Hudson and 
Fort William Henry on Lake George. In the battle of 
Lake George, the British colonials repulsed the French 
attack, but failed to follow up their victory. The French 
still held Crown Point and their general position on this 
front was not seriously weakened. 

The most disastrous and humiliating event of the year Braddock's 
was the defeat of Braddock's expedition against Fort Du- 
quesne. Matters went badly from the beginning. Braddock 
was a brave man, but like many other British officers he 
did not know how to bring out the hearty cooperation of 
his American associates, who were doubtless more or less 
at fault themselves. The Pennsylvania government espe- 
cially tried his patience, though Franklin was able to give 
substantial help. At last the preparations were completed 
and the long march through the mountains and forests 
began. On July 9, as the expedition was nearing Fort 
Duquesne, it was suddenly attacked by a force of French 
and Indians. The British officers fought bravely, but Brad- 
dock refused to modify his tactics to meet the requirements 
of Indian fighting m the woods. He himself was mortally 
wounded and his regulars were badly demoralized. Wash- 
ington, who served on Braddock's stafi", did good service 
with the Virginia provincials durmg and after the battle; but 
the defeat was overwhelming. The last reverse of this 
unlucky year was the abandonment of the expedition against 
Niagara, undertaken in person by Shirley, who succeeded 
Braddock as commander in chief of the American forces. 



374 



THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 



Loss of 
British 
prestige in 
the West. 



The war in 
Europe. 



Sea power in 
the Seven 
Years' War. 



Following upon Braddock's defeat in the Ohio valley, this 
failure on the Lakes meant an almost complete collapse of 
British influence in the West. The whole frontier was now 
attacked by the most appalling border warfare, and the line 
of British occupation, which had been advancing westward 
before the war, was forced suddenly back. 

All these operations took place before either party had 
definitely declared war; but the pretense of peace could 
not be kept up much longer. Great Britain postponed 
formal action until the French attacked the British post 
on the island of Minorca in the Mediterranean, and then 
put forward this operation as the technical ground for a 
declaration of war. This technicality probably helped to 
keep Spain neutral for a time and so postponed a dangerous 
combination of the French and Spanish fleets. Meantime, 
the so-called "diplomatic revolution" had taken place in 
Europe with momentous consequences for America as well. 
The Austrian government, abandoning its traditional policy 
of working with England to preserve the balance of power 
against France, entered a new combination with its old 
enemy, France, and Russia, in order to check the rising 
power of Prussia. The natural result was to put England, 
with Hanover, in the opposite camp. An alliance was made 
between Great Britain and Prussia which proved to be one 
of the essential factors determining the outcome of the 
American conflict. So the Seven Years' War began, more 
distinctly a world war than any before in human history. 

For England the great stake in this war was her sea 
power and the interests which sea power was intended to 
protect, her commerce and her colonies. For France, also, 
these were vital issues, but she was deeply concerned with 
continental politics, and the new alliance with Austria in- 
volved her much further than her real interests required. 
Thus France was heavUy burdened by expensive miUtary 
operations in Germany and consequently less able to pro- 



SEVEN YEARS' WAR; OPPOSING FORCES 375 

vide for her navy and the defense of her overseas interests. 
At the beginning of the war, the difference between the 
two navies was not so great; but it was steadily increased, 
and in the critical years of the conflict British domination 
of the ocean routes to America was decisive. All this, 
however, could not have been known beforehand and when 
the war broke out numerous complicating factors made 
the outcome far from certain. 

In America the British had one immense advantage in Opposing 
a colonial population perhaps fifteen times larger than their America, 
opponents. Equally evident was the superiority of the ^g"ouj^es. 
British colonists in wealth, in agriculture, in commerce, 
and in a generally self-reliant economic life. In the long 
run, the same self-reliant, independent spirit in their poli- 
tics would doubtless also have counted in their favor. Suc- 
cess in international conflict does not, however, depend on 
number and wealth alone, but often quite as much on the 
intelligence and efficiency with which these resources are 
organized. In this respect the British colonies often fell Weakness of 
short of their rivals. French authority in North America organization, 
was largely concentrated at Quebec; and, though the Cana- 
dian governor had troubles of his own, he was not depend- 
ent for men or money on popular assemblies, which could 
give or refuse as they saw fit and on their own terms. The 
British authorities, on the contrary, had to deal v/ith a 
dozen different governors and as many different assemblies, 
with quite uncertain and uneven results. In this final 
struggle with France, the New Englanders did fairly well 
because they appreciated their direct interest in tlie out- 
come and also because their governors, first Shirley and 
then Pownall, knevr how to work with high-spirited popular 
assemblies. Provinces less directly affected at any given 
time were likely to hold back or use some time of special 
danger to secure political concessions from their governors. 
In Pennsylvania Quaker theories of nonresistance were 



376 



THE STRUGGLE FOR THE WEST 



Plans for 

intercolonial 

union. 



The Albany 
Plan. 



embarrassing until the Quakers decided to withdraw tem- 
porarily from the assembly and leave the responsibility 
to men who had no scruples about war. 

The need of some intercolonial organization for the 
management of Indian relations and mihtary affairs was 
realized by far-sighted men on both sides of the water, but 
it was hard to agree on concrete propositions. Royal offi- 
cials were usually most interested m the centralization of 
militar}^ power, with a governor-general commanding the 
militia of all the colonies. The funds needed for military 
purposes might then be raised by an imperial assessment 
on all the provinces, perhaps taking the form of taxation 
by Parliament. Even so popular a governor as Shirley 
favored such a parliamentary tax, because it seemed the 
only vs^ay of distributing the burden fairly on all the colo- 
nies, instead of leaving a few to carry more than tlieir fair 
share. On the other hand, Franklin saw little chance of 
an effective organization unless the Americans were given 
a hand in it, and therefore favored a conference of repre- 
sentative men from the various colonies to form a volun- 
tary union. 

The most notable effort to realize Franklin's ideal of 
cooperation was made by the Albany Congress of 1754, 
which was called by order of the home government for the 
purpose of strengthening the English hold upon the Indians, 
more particularly the Iroquois. Seven colonies sent com- 
missioners to the congress, and Franklin was one of the 
active members. The plan finally agreed upon by the con- 
gress included a president-general appointed by the King, 
and a council consisting of representatives chosen by the 
colonial assemblies. This federal council was to provide 
for the common defense, control Indian relations, and levy 
taxes for these purposes, subject always to the veto of the 
president-general. It was a statesmanlike plan, too much 
so for the politicians on either side of the Atlantic. Royal 



PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION 377 

officials preferred a union of a less popular sort and the 
colonial assemblies were jealous of their independence. 
Few Americans were capable of rising, as Franklin did, to 
a statesmanship at once imperial and hberal. So the plan 
was given up and tlie war had to be fought, in the main, 
with the old machinery, though something was done to secure 
more unified treatment of Indian affairs by the appointment 
of two general superintendents, one in the North and another 
in the South. The former post was given to Sir William 
Johnson, the most successful of the British agents among 
the Iroquois. 

British management of the war suffered not only from British 
poor cooperation, but also at first from poor leadership. ^"" 

The British officers sent to America were often ignorant 
of colonial conditions and points of view. Quite legitimate 
demands for quarters and supplies were often presented 
so tactlessly as to cause unnecessary irritation. Rules of 
military precedence also made trouble and provincial offi- 
cers complained that their rank was not properly recog- 
nized. Washington, for instance, colonel in the Virginia 
militia and akeady an outstanding figure among the Ameri- 
can defenders of the western frontier, ranked no higher tlian 
a simple captain of regulars. Doubtless most militia officers 
were poorly trained, but the failure of routine officials to 
discriminate in such matters had a depressing effect on some 
of the very men whose larger vision and true patriotism 
especially fitted them for leadership among their more pro- 
vincial neighbors. 

Canada escaped some of these problems but not all French 
of them. The center of power at Quebec was undoubtedly 
well placed for defense even against great superiority in 
numbers; and in the West the French had more than re- 
covered their old prestige among the Indians. Before the 
war ended, however, it became clear that the autocratic 
administration of New France had serious defects of its 



378 



THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE 



The 

Canadian 

government. 



Montcalm. 



The outcome 
uncertain. 



The French 
and British 
governments. 



own. Of the three important offices in the Canadian gov- 
ernment — those of the governor, the intendant, and the 
general in command of the royal forces — two were in bad 
hands. The governor, Vaudreuil, was a Canadian by birth, 
with some experience as governor of Louisiana; but he 
lacked force, was easDy used by corrupt associates, and in 
the supreme crisis of his career allowed petty personal views 
to interfere with his devotion to the public service. A more 
positive and dangerous personality was Bigot, the intend- 
ant, who used his position as the head of the financial 
administration to enrich himself and his accomplices with 
disastrous consequences for his country. In sharp con- 
trast to Vaudreuil and Bigot stands the fine figure of the 
commanding general, the Marquis of Montcalm, who was 
not only a brave soldier but a gentleman and a real student 
of military science. The corrupt administration with which 
he had to work filled him with disgust, though he could 
do little to improve it. His position was especially awkward 
because in the last resort he was subject to the orders of 
the governor, who also kept the direct command of the 
Canadian militia. New France was also troubled by the 
same jealousy between provincial and regular officers which 
appeared on the British side. 

So far as American conditions were concerned they did 
not point clearly towards a decisive victory for either side. 
It was scarcely conceivable that the French should actually 
conquer the rich and populous British colonies; but it was 
doubtful whether the latter could cooperate sufficiently 
to break down the strong French defensive or even to secure, 
in the near future, the control of the great interior valleys. 
Evidently the final outcome would depend largely upon 
the relative strength of the two home countries. 

The French monarchy under Louis XV was still formida- 
ble, though it had lost something of its efficiency. The King 
was weak and there was no dominating personality, like 



EUROPEAN CONDITIONS 379 

Richelieu, among the ministers. The King's mistress, 
Madame de Pompadour, had great political influence, which 
she often used to advance incompetent favorites, and she 
was partly responsible for the disastrous diplomacy of the 
war. There were many able and patriotic men in the French 
service ; but first-rate national leadership was certainly lack- 
ing. The British were not much better off at first. Their 
German King, George II, was a soldier himself and was 
deeply interested in foreign politics; but the real 
power was exercised by the ministry, representing the 
majority in the House of Commons, which in turn was 
largely controlled by a group of influential Whig families. 
Newcastle, the prime minister, and other leaders of this 
inner group were fairly skillful politicians, but they were 
too much occupied with distributing patronage to give 
proper attention to larger problems. Here, as in France, 
favoritism rather than merit too often determined important 
appointments in the army and navy as well as in the civil 
service. Thus both governments began without competent 
leadership, and at first England made a poorer showing 
than France. 

In the Mediterranean, the French scored a decided tri- Events of 
umph by the capture of Minorca. In America, also, the ^^^ ' 
year 1756 went badly for the English. Under Montcalm's 
leadership, the French took the offensive and captured 
Oswego, which in spite of its importance for the western/ \ 
trade was not prepared for a serious attack. The new Brit- 
ish commander. Lord Loudoun, was clumsy in dealing with 
the provincial governments, whose cooperation was essen- 
tial to his success, and the British fleet, though superior 
in power, was not sufficiently so to cut French communi- 
cations with the colonies or cope with the commerce- 
destroying of enemy privateers. The one big personality on 
the English side of the war at first was not an Englishman 
at aU, but Frederick of Prussia, who was making a 



380 THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE 

gallant fight against the French and their allies on the 
Continent. 
William By the autumn of 1756 most intelligent Englishmen 

^"' realized that a new leadership was needed. The most effec- 

tive critic of the existing political machine was William 
Pitt, long a conspicuous member of the House of Commons 
but as yet without a cabinet appointment. Impatient of 
mere partisanship and keenly interested in the larger prob- 
lems of the empire, Pitt had the kind of self-confidence 
that inspires confidence in others. Above all he knew how 
to inspire the loyalty of the English middle class, as yet 
imperfectly represented in the House of Commons. A great 
national crisis now gave him his first opportunity for con- 
structive statesmanship. The Newcastle ministry was forced 
to resign and a new one was formed with Pitt as its real, 
though not its nominal, head. Pitt soon found, however, 
that the old leaders were still formidable, and a few months 
later he was forced to retire. Fortunately for the country 
Pitt and his opponents now saw the necessity of coopera- 
tion, and so the two elements presently came together in 
a powerful combination which lasted four years — long 
enough to decide the main issues of the war. During this 
period, from 1757 to 1761, Newcastle looked after "prac- 
/ tical politics" and Pitt kept himself comparatively free 
for vital issues of imperial statesmanship. As secretary 
of state he was primarily responsible for tlie colonies and 
for international diplomacy; but he also kept his hand 
on the military and naval services, thus helping to insure 
effective cooperation between them. In both the fighting 
services, Pitt had able technical advisers who carried out 
his plans loyally; but the "grand strategy" of the war was 
largely his own. 
Development Wlien Pitt took the helm the outlook was not encour- 
strategy, aging. The navy could not prevent the French fleets from 
getting across the Atlantic in sufficient force to block the 




William Pitt 



I 



PITT'S STRATEGY 381 

British operations in America, including a proposed attack 
on Louisburg. In 1757 Montcalm once more took the 
offensive, this time on the line of Lake Champlain and 
Lake George, where he captured the British post of Fort 
William Henry. During the next few months, however, 
Pitt worked out his strategy for the coming year, in which 
the American campaigns took the first place. To keep 
France busy in Europe, Frederick the Great was supported 
by British subsidies, with some Hanoverian troops; and 
some expeditions were sent against the French coast. Mean- 
time, England's main strength was free for decisive opera- 
tions overseas. Pitt had now got be3^ond the boundary 
disputes with which the war began and was planning for 
the conquest of New France. 

These were great designs, and Pitt's next task was to New ap- 
find men capable of carrying them out. Incompetent offi- ^I'^oie'army 
cers had to be set aside and younger men who had shown ^°^ "^'^y- 
ability were brought to the front. "Politics" still made 
trouble and Pitt was not infallible; but there was soon a 
decided toning up in the military service. The clumsy and 
ineffective General Loudoun was recalled, and though Aber- 
crombie, the new general in chief, was little if any better, 
two of the junior ofiScers soon justified Pitt's confidence. 
Jeffrey Amherst was a solid, though not brilliant, officer 
just transferred from Germany to the American service, 
and Brigadier-General James WoKe, though still a young Wolfe, 
man in the early thirties, was a thorough student of military 
science. These two men were chosen for the important task 
of taking Louisburg from the French. The cooperating 
naval force was commanded by Admiral Boscawen, one of. 
the ablest ofi5cers of his day. 

The main responsibility for this year's American cam- Pitt's appeal 
paigns fell on the navy and the British regulars; but Pitt colonies, 
also understood the importance of colonial cooperation. In 
December, 1757, he sent a spirited circular to the colonial 



382 



THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE 



The victories 
of 1758. 
Louisburg. 



Fort 
Frontenac. 



Fort 
Duquesne. 



governors which helps us to understand his unique success 
in winning American confidence and good will. He began 
with a stirring appeal for help in "carrying war into 
the heart of the enemy's possessions." The King, he said, 
would not limit the zeal of any province by fijcing the exact 
quota of troops, but all were urged to do their utmost for 
the common cause. Provincial military officers were to 
receive more favorable ranking than before; arms and 
provisions were to be paid for from the imperial treasury; 
and Parliament was to be asked to compensate the colo- 
nial governments for war expenses. Most of the colonial 
assemblies responded loyally and the prospect soon grew 
brighter. 

In the summer of 1758, the army and navy under Am- 
herst, Wolfe, and Boscawen brought the siege of Louisburg 
to a successful close. Wolfe was now eager to go on with 
Pitt's more ambitious project for the taking of Quebec; 
but he was overruled, partly because of the lateness of the 
season, and partly because of bad news from the Lake 
Champlain region, where Abercrombie had been repulsed 
in a badly managed attack on Ticonderoga. The casual- 
ties were serious, including Lord Howe, Abercrombie's sec- 
ond in command, who was not only an able ofiicer but 
unusually successful in winning the confidence of the pro- 
vincial militia. This reverse at the center was offset by 
notable victories in the West. First came the capture 
of Fort Frontenac by a force composed mainly of pro- 
\ancials under the command of a New England officer, 
Lieutenant-Colonel Bradstreet. The fall of Fort Frontenac 
carried with it the French vessels on Lake Ontario and 
broke the main line of communication between Canada 
and the western posts. The final event of the year was 
the taking of Fort Duquesne by General Forbes, another 
of Pitt's fortunate appointments, after a painful march in 
late autumn through the forests of western Pennsylvania. 



THE SIEGE OF QUEBEC 383 

The French, discouraged by the fall of Fort Frontenac, 
did not wait for Forbes's arrival. The British commander, 
who had been seriously handicapped by illness during the 
campaign, died soon after; but before the end came, he 
reported to the great war minister in England that he had 
given the captured fort the new name of Pittsburgh, "as 
I hope it was in some measure the being actuated by your 
spirits that now makes us masters of the place." 

Thus in a single year the American situation had com- The outlook 
pletely changed. Pitt and his advisers now looked forward ^° ^^^^' 
to the crowning enterprise — the seizure of Quebec and the 
conquest of Canada. By this time, British naval superi- 
ority was much more evident than in the early years of the 
war; though a few French ships managed to slip across to 
the St. Lawrence, they were not strong enough to interrupt 
the British transport service or relieve the besieged garrison 
of Quebec. The general strategy adopted for the new cam- 
paign against Canada was substantially the old plan of a The plan of 
double attack, one by way of the ocean and the lower St. *^'^™p^'^°- 
Lawrence and the other by land from the Hudson valley. 
The latter movement, with the general command of the land 
forces, was entrusted to Amherst. 

The attack on Quebec was led by Admiral Saunders Capture of 
and General Wolfe, both admirably fitted for the task in Woife^*and 
hand. First came the difficult operation of getting the Montcalm, 
fleet safely up the St. Lawrence. This was accomplished 
by the end of June, when the expedition came to anchor 
off Quebec. Then followed two months of hard and anxious 
work with the outcome quite uncertain until the very end. 
It was Montcalm's policy to take full advantage of his 
strong defensive position at Quebec by avoiding a decisive 
encounter with the British on anything like equal terms. 
He did not have to defeat Wolfe's army; for if he could 
only hold his ground until winter, the invaders would have 
to give up the attack. It was Wolfe's game, on the contrary, 



384 



THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE 



A year of 
victories. 



The con- 
quest of 
Canada 
completed. 



to tempt Montcalm into taking the offensive. One plan 
after another failed, however; for the "wary old fellow," 
as Wolfe called his opponent, steadily refused to take 
chances. So, as the summer passed and the first week of 
September, it began to look as if Montcalm would win. 
Wolfe was handicapped by his own illness and seemed 
for a time to have lost the confidence of his subordi- 
nates; but he finally decided to take a desperate chance. 
In the dark morning hours of September 13, 1759, he 
landed his troops on the northern shore of tlie river above 
Quebec, scaled the difficult cliffs and won a position on 
the Plains of Abraham, which so commanded the city that 
Montcalm was at last forced to a decisive engagement. 
WoKe fell leading his victorious forces, and Montcalm 
soon after. The young English general was not quite tliirty- 
three years old, but he had lived long enough to associate 
his name forever with the final predominance, on this conti- 
nent, of English-speaking people. 

The taking of Quebec was the chief but not the only 
important result of the year's work in America. In the 
center, Amherst advanced far enough to occupy the aban- 
doned French positions at Ticonderoga and Crown Point; 
but the proposed advance on Montreal was postponed. 
On the Great Lakes, the British captured the French post 
of Niagara. Another substantial achievement was the 
capture of Guadeloupe in the West Indies. It was a great 
year for Pitt, full of anxieties, — as when England's ally, 
Frederick the Great, was almost overwhelmed by the 
Russians and Austrians, — yet finally crowned with victory 
almost everywhere. 

The fall of Quebec was not completely decisive. Gov- 
ernor Vaudreuil still held Montreal, and in the early months 
of 1760 the French came dangerously near recovering Que- 
bec. A few months later, however, Amherst's carefully 
prepared and well-executed plans resulted in the taking of 



PEACE NEGOTIATIONS 385 

Montreal and the surrender of Canada to the British forces. 
So far as Nortli America was concerned, the primary ob- 
ject of tlie war had been won; but Pitt was not satisfied. 
In the West Indies, Guadeloupe was already taken and 
he was planning expeditions against the other French islands. 
There was also talk of expeditions against New Orleans and 
Mobile. Above all, Pitt hoped to weaken the national 
power of France to the point where she would accept a 
"dictated peace." 

Now, however, a new danger appeared above the hori- spain and 
zon. Spain, which had so far been kept neutral, was finally compact!'^ 
led by fear of English domination into a new Family Com- . 
pact v/ith France. Convinced that this treaty of 1761 ; 
would bring Spain into the war, Pitt proposed to antic- 
ipate the danger by attacking the Spanish treasure fleet from 
America. His colleagues, who had so far accepted his lead- 
ership, — not to say dictation, — now refused to follow him. 
Meantime the new King, George III, and his favorite new 
minister. Lord Bute, were working for peace. Thus blocked 
on what he considered a vital matter, Pitt resigned. "I Pitt resigns. 
will be responsible," he declared, "for nothing that I do 
not direct." 

Spain did come in as Pitt predicted, but too late to New British 
save her ally from defeat. West and east, England kept 
her supremacy on the sea. In 1762, Martinique was taken I 
from the French and Cuba from the Spaniards. In the ' 
Far East, there was another notable victory when the British 
captured Manila. Notwithstanding these victories, Pitt's 
successors would not stand for his extreme terms, and peace 
negotiations were pushed forward at Paris. On the British Peace 
side there was a long and interesting debate on the desira- "^^° 
bility of keeping Canada after all. It was said by some 
writers to be a barren and unprofitable country, whose 
occupation by the French would serve to remind the Brit- 
ish colonies of their need for protection by the mother coun- 



386 THE PASSING OF NEW FRANCE 

try. From this point of view, the sugar island of Guade- 
loupe seemed a more valuable acquisition. Others, including 
Benjamin Franklin, described in glowing colors the pro- 
spective development of the continental colonies, giving new 
strength to the empire and an expanding market for British 
manufacture. Incidentally also, the owners of sugar plan- 
tations in the British islands were not eager for new com- 
The treaty petitors in the empire. So in the final treaty of 176^ 

of Paris. !-, j , ■, ^r • • • , ^ , 

Lruadeloupe and Martmique were given up and Canada was 
held. To Spain the British restored Manila, and also Cuba; 
but for this they received the cession of Florida, and thus 
North America became British from the Atlantic to the 
Mississippi, with the exception of New Orleans, which, 
with all of Louisiana west of the Mississippi, went to Spain 
as an offset for the loss of Florida. All that remained of 
the great French dominion in North America was a pair 
of little islands, St. Pierre and Miquelon, with some privi- 
leges for French fishermen on the coast of Newfoundland. 
Results to With these conquests in America and the establishment 

Se^cdonfes!^ at the same time of British predominance in India, England 
for the first time became the unquestioned leader among 
the maritime and colonial powers of the world. To the 
people of the British continental colonies, the Paris treaty 
of 1763 meant the removal of a constant menace to their 
peaceful development and the breaking of the barriers which 
checked their westward expansion. 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

General Bolton and Llarshall, North America, ch. XX. Channing, 

references. ^^-^^^ ^^^^^^^ jj^ ^^^ XVIII, XIX. Lucas, Historical Geog- 
raphy of the British Empire, Canada, pt. I, chs. VII- XI. Thwaites, 
France in America, chs. V-XVIII. Winsor, America, V, chs. I, 
VII, VIII. Wrong, G. M., Conquest of New France, chs. IV-XI. 

Selected Hart, Contemporaries, II, pt. V. Macdonald, Select Charters., 

sources. 

nos. SI, 52, 54. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



387 



Abbott, W. C, Expansion of Europe, II, chs. XXX, XXXII. 
Andrews, Anglo-French Rivalry, 1700-1750 {Am. Hist. Review, 
XX, 539-556, 761-780). Cambridge Modern History, VI, chs. V, 
VI, XIII. Mahan, Influence of Sea Power, 1660-1783, chs. VI- 
VIII. McKinnon, J., French Monarchy, chs. XIX-XXII. Robert- 
son, England under the Hanoverians, chs. II, III. 

Casgi-ain, H. R., Wolfe and Montcalm (French-Canadian 
writer). Corbett, J., England in, the Seven Years' War. Park- 
man, F., Mantcalm and Wolfe. Wood, W., The Fight for Canada. 
Doughty, A. G., and Parmelee, G. W., Siege of Quebec (leading 
authority but too detailed for most readers). 

Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, chs. I, II, Biographies of 
Pitt by W. D. Green, von Ruville, and B. Williams. Hotblack, K., 
Chatham's Colonial Policy, especially chs. VIII-XII. KimbaU, 
G. S., ed. Correspondence of William Pitt with Colonial Governors. 

Ford, W. C., Washington, I, chs. III-VI. Lodge, H. C, 
Washington, I, ch. III. See also Washington's Journal and letters 
in Writings (edited by Ford), I. Franklin, B., Autobiography in 
Writin.gs (edited by Smyth) I, and letters ibid., III. Stone, W. L., 
Sir William Johnson (also short sketch of Johnson in Dictionary 
of National Biography). See also correspondence of Governors 
Shirley (edited by C. H. Lincoln) and Sharpe (Maryland Archives). 

Alvord, C. W., Illinois Centennial History, I, chs. VIII-XI. 
Henderson, A., Conquest of the Old Southwest, chs. III-VI. 
Thwaites, Early Western Travels, I (Weiser, Croghan). Winsor, J., 
Mississippi Basin (cartography and trade movements). Hul- 
bert, A. B., Historic Highways, Ill-V. Hanna, C. A., Wilderness 
Trail, and Scotch-Irish (mines of information, but hard to use). 

Beer, G. L., British Colonial Policy, chs. I-VIII. Alvord, 
C. W., Mississippi Valley in British Politics, I, ch. II. Franklin, 
Writings (edited by Smyth), IV. Foster, W. E., Stephen Hop- 
kins (Rhode Island Historical Tracts) . Pitman, F. W., British West 
Indies, ch. XIV. 



Background 
of world 
politics. 



The last 
French war. 



Pitt's 
leadership. 



American 
leaders. 



Western 
phases. 



British 
colonial 
policy in 
the war and 
the peace. 



CHAPTER XVn 
IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES, 1760 TO 1766 



New 

imperial 

problems. 



New prov- 
inces of 
Canada and 
Florida. 



In the great struggle with France for colonial empire, 
England's resources and her statesmanship were severely 
taxed; but peace brought problems not less serious, demand- 
ing an even higher type of leadership if the empire was to 
be held together. These problems were of many different 
kinds. In Asia, for instance, the British East India Com- 
pany was no longer a mere trading corporation but had 
to assume responsibility for the government of alien peoples. 
For nearly a century more, British statesmen wrestled with 
the problem of ruling India through a commercial company 
in such a way as to secure decent administration as well 
as a profitable income to the stockholders. A significant 
fact for the American colonies was the East India Com- 
pany's monopoly of the China trade, including tea, an 
increasingly popular beverage on both sides of the water. 

In America old diflSculties remained and new ones 
were added. In the north was Canada with perhaps eighty 
thousand people of alien race, religion, and law. These 
"new subjects" of the King had to be protected in the 
rights guaranteed to them by treaty; but the government 
also had to consider the "old subjects," from Great Biitain 
and the older colonies, who, though few in numbers, were 
pushing aggressively into the conquered territory, chiefly 
for purposes of trade. Along the Gulf coast from the At- 
lantic to the Mississippi was another conquered territory, 
consisting of Spanish Florida and the eastern section of 
French Louisiana. Here also there was the double duty 

r.88 



WESTERN PROBLEMS 389 

of governing the conquered inhabitants and regulating the 
activities of British traders and land speculators. 

An even more important and interesting problem was Western 
the management of the great western domain lying south ^'^^ ^™^' 
of the Great Lakes between the Alleghenies and the Mis- * 
sissippi. The interests to be considered were many and 
conflicting. First, there were the Indians, whose use of the 
country had been comparatively little affected by the few 
French posts scattered through the wilderness but who 
now feared a more serious invasion by British pioneers. 
Then there were the English fur traders, some working 
for themselves, others for companies great and small, fi- 
nanced by American and British capital and eager to de- 
velop the trade which they had begun before the war. Fi- 
nally, there were the pioneer colonists, colony promoters, 
and land speculators, who hoped to establish new settle- 
ments beyond the mountains. Within each group there 
were numerous conflicting interests. Pennsylvanians and 
Virginians came to blows, literally as well as figuratively, 
over land and trade in the upper Ohio valley. Well-to-do 
land speculators, some with dreams of proprietary colonies 
like those of Baltimore and Penn, were eager for royal grants 
which would enable them to forestall the squatters now 
fast pushing through the mountains. Some of these ques- 
tions could wait, but others pressed for immediate action. 
Especially urgent was the Indian problem forced on the 
attention of the British government by the Conspiracy of 
Pontiac in 1763. 

At the outbreak of the French war the King had tried Indian 
to regulate Indian relations by appointing two superin- conspiracy 
tendents of Indian affairs, one for the North and one for °^ Pontiac. 
the South. These officials did some useful work; but they 
could not manage the scattered traders of the western 
country, and intercolonial jealousies interfered with co- 
operation. Naturally these conditions led to great abuses. 



39° 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



The Procla- 
mation of 
1763. 



Colonial ad- 
ministration 
inadequate. 



and the Indians were often treated quite unfairly. At 
this critical moment of increasing hostility between the 
races, the Indians found an able leader in the Ottawa chief- 
tain, Pontiac, through whose efforts a great combination 
was formed against the English. At first tliis "conspiracy" 
was remarkably successful. The British could not take 
possession of their nev/ territory on the Mississippi; many 
of theur western posts fell into the hands of the Indians; 
and there were destructive raids along the whole frontier. 
The ultimate failure of the uprising was inevitable; but 
it emphasized the need of more unified and effective control 
of Indian affairs. 

The British government tried to gain time for the study 
of western problems by a temporary arrangement, which 
was embodied in the royal Proclamation of 1763. This 
order provided, first, for the organization of three new 
royal provinces out of the conquered territory on the con- 
tinent: Quebec, which was limited to the St. Lawrence 
valley; East Florida; and West Florida. Most of the 
trans-Allegheny territory between the thirty-first parallel 
and the Great Lakes was treated as an Indian reservation, 
in which the seaboard governors were forbidden to make 
any further grants; settlers who had already entered it 
were required to withdraw. The Proclamation of 1763 
was a natural and not unreasonable attempt to deal tem- 
porarily with a pressing problem, whose permanent solution 
would require further consideration; but it had to meet 
an equally natural and almost irresistible westward move- 
ment from the older colonies. 

It was not only the newly conquered territory which 
required attention from British statesmen. The whole 
machinery for colonial administration was felt to be quite 
inadequate. During the war the colonies, stimulated by 
Pitt's leadership, had done fairly well in furnishing soldiers 
and supplies, so well indeed that Parliament appropriated 



PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATION 39 1 

money to reimburse them for some of their expenses. Never- 
theless the burden had been unevenly distributed and some 
provinces failed to do their part. The recent wars had also 
shown more clearly than ever the weakness of the colonial 
customs service. The trade with the foreign West Indies 
which Parliament tried to check by the Molasses Act was 
continued on a large scale even with French and Spanish 
enemy ports. This commerce, covered by fraudulent prac- 
tices, such as the use of "flags of truce," was profitable to 
the individual traders engaged in it; but from an imperial, 
or even broadly patriotic, point of view, it was highly ob- 
jectionable because it helped the enemy islands to hold 
out against the British navy. Even so good a friend of the 
colonies as Pitt was exasperated by these irregular prac- 
tices and tried to stop them by drastic methods, including 
the use of naval vessels. This use of the navy continued 
after the war ended and was very unpopular. 

In general, then, British statesmen were led by the war, pians for re- 
and the resulting expansion of the empire, to consider more °^s^'^^^3.uoa. 
seriously the problems of colonial administration. They 
were becoming more and more convinced that there should 
be a tightening of the bonds which united the colonies 
with the mother country, in order that the empire as a whole 
might act efficiently, whether for economic purposes or for 
common defense. This movement for a more eifficient 
imperial system was natural enough, and to a great extent 
legitimate. It came, however, at a time when equally 
natural and legitimate forces were making themselves felt 
in America in the direction of greater freedom from external 
control. 

For one thing, the continental colonies were growing Growth 
so rapidly that they felt, more confidently than ever before, °oionfeg ^ 
their own strength and importance. Immigration was going new seif- 

, , , . . 1 • , confidence. 

on steadily and the natural increase m population was also 
large; for cheap land and a brisk demand for labor made 



392 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



American 
feeling 
about the 
empire. 



possible early marriages and large families. A few Ameri- 
cans, including Franklin, looked forward to a time when the 
population of the colonies would be larger than that of the 
mother country. No wonder that European observers began 
to doubt whether British America would always be content 
to remain a subordinate part of the empire. The French war 
and its results also stimulated American self-consciousness 
and self-confidence. In its beginning the war was large- 
ly an affair of the colonists themselves, and though Brit- 
ish regulars afterwards played the more important part, 
the final victory could hardly have been won without pro- 
vincial cooperation on a large scale. None of the great 
commanders were colonials, but some provincial officers 
made excellent records and won a continental reputation. 
One New England colonel, Phineas Lyman, deserved the 
chief credit for the repulse of the French army in the battle 
of Lake George. Another Yankee officer, Bradstreet, com- 
manded the attack on Fort Frontenac, one of the best- 
managed expeditions of the war. In the terrible months 
of border warfare after Braddock's defeat, Washington won 
an enviable reputation which went far beyond the limits of 
Virginia. There were a few civilians also whose leadership 
expanded beyond provincial limits. Chief among them 
was Franklin, who, in the midst of general inefficiency, 
rendered substantial service to the unlucky Braddock, and 
whose opinions on the difficult problem of colonial union 
were sought and respected even by royal officials who did 
not agree with him. 

On the whole and for the time being, the achievements 
of the war stimulated the patriotic pride of Americans in 
the great empire to which they belonged. The heroes of 
the war were gratefully remembered. To General Howe, 
who fell at Ticonderoga, Massachusetts set up a monument 
in Westminster Abbey, and Pitt had a unique place in the 
affections of his American fellow subjects. In this growing 



VIEWS OF FRANKLIN 393 

empire, however, Americans were demanding more liberal 
recognition. Their leaders were sensitive to slights, and 
tact was not the strong point of most British officials in 
America, or of their superiors at home. Even such an admi- 
rable officer as Wolfe shared the expert's impatience with 
the provincial militiamen, — their slackness in discipline and 
their ignorance of military technique. In the early years of 
the war, no provincial commission above the grade of captain 
was formally recognized by the British military authorities. 

Few Americans of that time were more attached to Opinions of 
England and the English people than Franklin; but he 
wrote to one of his friends in Scotland that " the foundations 
of the future grandeur and stabihty of tlie British Empire 
lie in America." He complained that heretofore "a petty 
corporation" or a "particular set of artificers or traders in 
England" had sometimes "been more regarded than all 
the colonies." British statesmen, he thought, should get 
over the idea of discriminating in favor of a particular 
group of their fellow subjects. What difference did it make 
from a truly imperial point of view "whether a merchant, 
a smith, or a hatter" grew rich in "Old or New England"? 
If there were to be any partiality at all, should it not be 
shown to those who worked for the good of the empire 
"at the risk of their own lives and private fortunes in new 
and strange countries"? Back of these opinions, too, was 
the personality of a man who in spirit at least was no longer 
provincial, who felt himself at ease in the best intellectual 
company of Europe. Franklin was an exceptional American, 
of course; but there were also young men coming forward, 
like John Adams, in Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson 
in Virginia, whose thinking, in some respects at least, was 
outgrowing provincial limitations. 

With Americans of this sort to deal with, it was not New friction 
easy to maintain even the existing system of control, not to 
speak of that "closer dependence" which was the constant 



issues. 



394 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



Outstanding 
controver- 
sies, 
1761-1763. 



The Par- 
son's Cause. 



aim of imperialist officials on both sides of the Atlantic. 
In one colony after another, there was new friction over 
old issues. Colonial assembhes had used the necessities of 
the war as a means of extorting concessions from their 
governors, who complained bitterly of encroachments on 
their own prerogatives and those of the Crown. The old 
dispute whether judges should be removable at discretion 
or serve as in England during good behavior loomed up 
again, and a New Jersey governor who yielded to local 
pressure on this question was disciplined by dismissal from 
his office. In Maryland and Pennsylvania the provincial 
assemblies were exasperated by the stubborn insistence of 
the proprietors on having their lands exempted from taxa- 
tion; and when the war ended, the Pennsylvania assembly 
sent Franklin to England to work for the overthrow of the 
proprietary rule and the establishment of a royal govern- 
ment in its place. 

Among the provincial controversies which disturbed the 
harmony between the colonies and the mother country 
during the closing years of the war period, two have always 
had a prominent place in the story of the Revolution. These 
were the "Parson's Cause" in Virginia and the case of the 
"writs of assistance" in Massachusetts. Neither affair in- 
volved any new principle of British policy, but they are 
significant because of the fundamental issues discussed, the 
character of the men thus brought to the front as leaders 
of the American opposition, and their effect on public opin- 
ion in these two important colonies. 

The Parson's Cause had its starting point in the Vir- 
ginia system under which the salaries of clergymen as well 
as of civil officers were provided by public taxation; thus 
the annual salary of a minister was fixed at sixteen thousand 
pounds of tobacco. Unfortunately tobacco was constantly 
fluctuating in value; when the price went up the parishioners 
thought the clergy were getting too much. During the war 



THE PARSON'S CAUSE 395 

crops were poor, prices rose, and the planters complained 
that the clergy were profiting by the necessities of the 
people. So in 1755 and 1758 the assembly ordered the 
payment of the church tax in money instead of tobacco, at 
the rate of two pence a pound, considerably below the 
market rate. The clergy protested against this legislation, 
pointing out that in tlie past they had not been compen- 
sated for falling prices; but public opinion was against 
them. 

Failing to get relief in Virginia, the clergy appealed to Appeal to 
the King and in 1759 secured an order in council annulling * ^ ^°^' 
the objectionable law. In this again there was nothing 
new, for colonial statutes had often been vetoed by the 
Crown. The question now arose, however, whether this 
royal order was retroactive, so as to affect salaries payable 
between the passage of the act and its repeal by the. Crown. 
To determine this point, suits were brought by several 
of the clergy, and in one case the magistrates of Hanover 
County ruled that the act of 1758 was void. In order, 
however, to determine the payment due under the old law, 
a jury verdict was required, with unexpected results. 

The parishioners engaged the services of Patrick Henr}'-, Patrick 
a young lawyer of twenty-seven, who, though of a good ^^^^' 
family, sympathized with the small farmers of the upland 
districts rather than with the planter aristocracy. One 
of Henry's uncles was an Anglican clergyman and he him- 
self belonged to that church; but his mother was a 
Presbyterian and the young man had inherited a certain 
sympathy for the dissenters. In his argument on the case 
Henry refused to recognize the royal veto as final, de- 
nounced it as tyrannical, and made a violent attack on 
the established clergy. The jury, which included some 
dissenters, listened with approval, and their verdict of only 
one penny damages for the plaintiff practically nullified 
the former decision of the court on the question of principle. 



396 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 

Other cases came up and the issue was taken to the Privy 
Council in England; but the clergy could not secure any 
practical redress. Thus an obscure provincial lawyer, 
supported by strong popular feeling, had successfully 
attacked a recognized prerogative of the crown. Inciden- 
tally, also, the democracy of the back country had found 
an eloquent spokesman. 
"Writs of Two years before Henry's notable speech, a Massa- 

assistance. chusetts lawyer had questioned the validity of an act of 
Parliament. In this case also there was an economic griev- 
ance. The Massachusetts merchants were disturbed be- 
cause stricter enforcement of customs regulations was cut- 
ting into their business, especially with the foreign West 
Indies. They now objected strenuously to the use, for 
this purpose, of the so-called "writs of assistance," or gen- 
eral search warrants, differing from the ordinary variety 
in not specifying the premises to be searched. These writs 
were offensive both because they were used to enforce 
unpopular duties and because they might cause annoyance 
to innocent persons; but they were authorized by act of 
Parliament and there were precedents for them in America 
as well as in England. When, therefore, the death of George 
II made it necessary to secure new writs in the name of 
his successor, the judges were apparently bound to issue 
them as a matter of course. The merchants, however, 
determined to make a stand, and engaged as their counsel 
James Otis. James Otis, a rising lawyer, who resigned his royal com- 
mission as advocate-general in order to take the case. Re- 
fusing to confine hunself to the technical points immedi- 
ately involved, Otis raised a much larger issue. Relying on 
certain English opinions of the early seventeenth century, 
he argued that Parliament was limited by the fundamental 
principles of the common law. General warrants, he held, 
were contrary to these principles and therefore illegal, acts 
of Parliament to the contrary notwithstanding. Otis's 



BRITISH POLITICS 397 

argument made enough impression to delay action, but in 
the end his dients were defeated and the writs were issued. 
Meantime Otis had made his reputation as a defender of 
colonial rights, and got before his fellow provincials the 
doctrine that even the power of Parliament had its consti- 
tutional limitations. 

Such incidents as the Parson's Cause and the fight over The need of 
writs of assistance were not of course suflScient in themselves s'tatesman- 
to endanger the union of Great Britain and her colonies. Yet ^^'p- 
they developed a sensitive public opinion which could easily 
be aroused against any attempt to extend the field of parlia- 
mentary action beyond the customary limits. Under these 
circumstances, the task of reconciling imperial efficiency 
with American ideas of self-government certainly demanded 
statesmanship of the highest order. Unfortunately, such 
statesmanship was painfully rare among those who then 
shaped the policies of the British government. 

The beginning of a new reign is not always very im- British 
portant; but the succession of George III in 1760 was a [^eo!*^ "* 
momentous event for the British Empire. Certainly the 
new king began his reign in a very different spirit from that 
of his immediate predecessors and with strong convictions 
about his constitutional rights. Under the first two Han- 
overian kings the actual government of Great Britain was 
mainly controlled by the Whigs, though their organization 
had been weakened of late by the independent leadership 
of Pitt. The nucleus of tliis "Old Whig" organization was 
a group of great noble families who professed a kind of 
aristocratic liberalism. More particularly they advocated 
the constitutional principles of the "glorious revolution" 
of 1688, including the sovereignty of Parliament as against 
the personal will of the King. Their power rested partly 
on their wealth and social prestige, which gave them great 
influence in the choice of members of the House of Com- 
mons; but they could also count on the merchant class 



398 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



The Hano- 
verian kings. 



George III 
and his po- 
litical ideas. 



and the dissenters, who for various reasons joined the 
Whigs in supporting the Protestant succession against the 
Stuart pretenders. Meantime, the old Tory party, dis- 
credited by its Jacobite members, almost disappeared and 
politics degenerated into factional contests between Whigs 
in office and Whigs out of office. Under this system the 
King had httle to say except sometunes about military 
matters or continental foreign policy, in which as Elector 
of Hanover he had a special interest. Nearly everything 
was decided by the ministry, which once in power domi- 
nated the House of Commons through a majority largely 
composed of officeholders. All this could be done without 
much difficulty when the king was a foreigner, ill informed 
about English politics and quite aware that too much 
interference on his part might cost him his throne. With 
the accession of George III, however, the situation was 
radically changed. 

For one thing, the Hanoverian dynasty, after two reigns 
covering about half a century, was at last securely estab- 
lished. Except for a handful of enthusiasts no one took the 
claims of the Stuarts seriously. Even conservative country 
gentlemen of Tory antecedents could now promise unre- 
served loyalty to the new king, who, unlike his predecessors, 
was born in England and in his first speech gloried "in 
the name of Britain." In matters of personal decency, 
too, George III was infinitely superior to his immediate 
predecessors. These were great advantages and George was 
determined to use them in order to secure for himself a posi- 
tion of real dignity and power. His political theories were 
not those of the Whigs, who asserted the complete supremacy 
of Parliament over the Crown, but rather those of the Tory 
philosopher-statesman, Lord Bolingbroke. The "patriot 
king," according to Bolingbroke, should be no puppet carry- 
ing out the will of this or that group of party politicians, 
but a real leader rising above parties to speak for the nation 



GEORGE III AND THE WHIG FACTIONS 399 

as a whole. That was the kind of king George III meant 
to be if he could, and he nearly succeeded. Of the stubborn 
determination necessary for such a program, he had more 
than enough; but he lacked the breadth of intelligence 
and sympathy necessary to the government of a world-wide 
empire. 

The King's first move was fairly successful. His peace The fall 
policy, developed under the influence of his Scotch tutor, ^^e Bute 
Lord Bute, soon brought him into conflict with Pitt, who ministry, 
sympathized with the King in his dislike of party govern- 
ment but was too proud to remain in a cabinet which he 
could not control. Bute became secretary of state and soon 
crowded out Newcastle, the chief of the Whig politicians. 
Thus within two years of his accession George was able to 
put his personal representative and favorite into the position 
hitherto held by the leader of the dominant party. The 
new ministry was also able, partly at least through corrup- 
tion, to secure the election of a compliant Parliament. In 
his conflict with the old Whig machine, George III had 
some support from liberal-minded men. Even some Ameri- 
cans, like Franklin, believed in his patriotism and sympa- 
thized with his fight against the old-line politicians. Unfor- 
tunately for the King's policy. Lord Bute's personality was 
not popular; he was not an Englishman but a Scotchman 
and was believed to owe his position to backstairs in- 
fluence with the Queen Mother and the King. The French 
treaty also was highly unpopular. So Bute, who had taken 
office reluctantly, was glad to retire, though he still had 
great influence over the King. 

The break-up of the Whig party into warring factions, The Whig 
which had begun in the last years of George II, now seemed ^^^''^'^^• 
complete. Some of these factions professed more or less 
definite principles; but in the main they were dominated 
by personal ambitions and interests, some of which affected 
directly the management of colonial affairs. One of these 



400 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



The "Old 
Whigs." 



The 
"Pittites." 



George 
Grenville. 



The 

" Blooms- 
bury gang." 



groups, known as the "Old Whigs," was led at first by the 
veteran politician, Newcastle, and later by the Marquis of 
Rockingham, a wealthy and pubUc-spirited, but intellec- 
tually second-rate nobleman. The best mind in this party 
was Edmund Burke, a young and comparatively obscure 
Irishman, who made himself an expert on American affairs, 
served for a time as a colonial agent, and later, as member 
of Parliament for Bristol, made some famous speeches on 
conciliation with America. A second group was led by 
William Pitt. Though Pitt was not fond of the "Old Whigs " 
and disliked their whole system of' party government, he 
was too masterful a personality and too liberal in some 
respects to work steadily with the King. The "Pittites" 
took a keen interest in overseas problems and may fairly 
be called "liberal imperialists." Pitt was in office very 
little after 1761; but he was a great figure in Parliament 
until his death in 1778. His ablest follower was the young 
Earl of Shelburne, who as president of the Board of Trade 
and secretary of state had a good deal to do with American 
affairs. During the next twenty years it was these two 
groups, the "Old Whigs" and the "Pittites," which on the 
whole were most sympathetic toward America, though 
neither was able to work out a really constructive policy. 
There were two other groups, led respectively by George 
Grenville and the Duke of Bedford, whose attitude toward 
America was much less friendly. Grenville, who was con- 
nected with Pitt by marriage but did not act with him politi- 
cally, became a member of the Bute ministry and was se- 
lected as Bute's successor when the latter retired. Grenville 
thus became ofiicially responsible for the new policy of 
colonial taxation. The followers of Bedford, commonly 
called the "Bloomsbury gang" were on the whole conserv- 
ative, though without very definite principles. The Duke 
himself was one of the chief landed magnates of the king- 
dom and his followers were notorious for a particularly 



PARLIAMENTARY FACTIONS 401 

cynical kind of politics even in a time of generally low 
standards. 

Cutting across these factional lines to a certain extent other influ- 
were other divisions based on economic interests. The ParU^ment. 
county members, who represented the landed gentry in 
the House of Commons, were a conservative but com- 
paratively uncorrupt element. They kept a sharp eye on 
any proposal which might require more taxes from them 
and took kindly to the idea of getting some revenue out of 
the colonies. A new element, especially obnoxious to the 
country gentlemen, were the "nabobs," who had made for- 
tunes in the East India trade and, like some present-day 
American millionaires, were ready to spend money freely for 
political honors, thus raising uncomfortably the market prices 
for seats in the House of Commons. Then there were the 
merchants of London, Bristol, and other important ports, 
who stood for the enforcement of the acts of trade, but 
sometimes raised their voices against measures which might 
provoke American retaliation and so interfere with their 
colonial business. 

In this chaos of factions, it was almost impossible to The "King's 
form party cabinets capable of carrying out any well-con- 
sidered and continuous policy. Ministries were therefore 
generally made up of men belonging to different factions 
and holding quite different opinions on the leading issues 
of the day. To speak of Whig and Tory parties during 
this period is quite misleading. No such definite party 
division existed during the whole period of the American 
Revolution. In these troubled waters George III found 
his opportunity. He played off one faction against another 
and did not scruple to use public funds either to buy elec- 
tions or to buy members after election. So there came to 
be a group of men in Parliament whose votes the King 
could control, sometimes even against the ministry. These 
"King's Friends," or court party, became increasingly in- 



402 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



Grenville 

and his ad- 
ministration. 



Readjust- 
ment of the 
acts of trade. 



fluential, so much so as to endanger the whole principle of 
parliamentary government. 

When George Grenville became prime minister, in 1763, 
he had already learned as secretary of state something 
about American business, and now for the next two years 
he became the chief exponent of British policy in America. 
Grenville has not an enviable place in American history but 
he had some good qualities; he was honest, he had the 
courage of his convictions, and he was a real reformer. 
Some years later he secured the passage of a bill which made 
it possible to decide contested elections on some other 
basis than favoritism or partisan advantage. In the same 
spirit he now insisted that men who held colonial offices 
should actually administer them, instead of merely drawing 
salaries in England and getting cheap substitutes to do the 
real work. It is a picturesque exaggeration to say that 
Grenville was the first secretary to read the American 
dispatches and discover how far the actual management 
of colonial business was from the theory; that had been 
pretty well understood in official circles for some time. He 
was, however, particularly conscientious in this respect. Un- 
fortunately all his information about irregularities in colo- 
nial trade never gave him any real insight into the colonial 
point of view, which he considered quite unreasonable and 
perverse. 

The first result of Grenville's studies and those of his 
advisers on the Board of Trade was a conviction that 
the customs administration in America needed to be tight- 
ened up and adjusted to new conditions. Not all of the 
changes which he carried through Parliament were injurious 
to the colonies; old bounties on the importation of Ameri- 
can hemp were revived, and the reduction of duties on 
whale fins put the New England whalers on a better footing 
in the English market. Nevertheless, the main features of 
the old legislation were retained and more stringent 



THE REVENUE PROBLEM 403 

measures taken for their enforcement. The use of the navy 
for this purpose was authorized by law; the jurisdiction of 
the courts of admiralty in revenue cases was enlarged; and 
governors were urged to keep a sharp lookout for illegal 
trade. Grenville faced a particularly knotty problem when 
he took up the Molasses Act of 1733, which had run so 
squarely against the normal course of American trade that 
no serious effort was made to enforce it. He now decided 
to substitute for tlie old molasses duty of sixpence per gal- 
lon, which, if enforced, would have stopped the trade with 
the foreign West Indies altogether and therefore yielded no 
revenue, a lower duty of threepence per gallon which was 
really to be collected. This change was accordingly made in 
the Sugar Act of 1764, and it began to look as if the 
northern merchants in particular would lose a large share of 
the profits which they had made in the old easy-going days. 
Disturbing as this was in itself, there were other features of 
the Sugar Act which indicated a new and unlucky turn in 
British colonial policy. 

The idea of raising a revenue in America by act of Par- American 
liament had occurred to many people during the first half '^^^^^°°- 
of the eighteenth century, but cautious statesmen like Wal- 
pole and Pitt fought shy of it. Now, however, the temp- 
tation was stronger than ever. The country gentlemen 
were anxious to get rid of war taxes, but there was a heavy 
war debt and the new territories in America seemed to- 
demand more expensive machinery for defense and for 
the regulation of Indian affairs. Wliat, it was said, could be 
fairer than to require the colonists to contribute their share, 
and how could they be made to do so regularly without an 
act of Parliament? That was probably the most common ar- 
gument back of the demand for American taxation. Another 
idea, somewhat in the background, was quite familiar to 
a group of men who had studied colonial problems in the 
Board of Trade. How, they argued, could England control 



404 IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 

her colonial governments properly so long as the royal 
governors and other ofl&cials were dependent on temporary 
grants of provincial assemblies, when governors and judges 
could be coerced by reducing their salaries or cutting them 
off altogether? Why not, then, establish a parliamentary 
revenue which should be raised in America but determined 
in England, thus securing governments mdependent of 
local pressure, more fully controlled by the Crown, and more 
faithful in the enforcement of British statutes? 

The Sugar So the Sugar Act of 1764 began with a memorable pre- 

^ ' ^"^ '^- amble, declaring it "just and necessary that a revenue be 
raised" in the King's "dominions in America," now "happily 
enlarged," "for defraying the expences of defending, pro- 
tecting, and securing the same." For this purpose, duties 
were levied not only on molasses and sugar imported from 
the foreign plantations, but also on coffee, wines, East India 
goods, and other foreign commodities. The colonial mer- 
chants were much disturbed by this act, especially in the 
matter of the West Indian trade; but the importance of 
the revenue feature was not fully realized, partly because 
some external duties had long been levied in connection 
with the Navigation Acts. The great issue of taxation 
without representation was not clearly defined until the 
passage of the Stamp Act, which was proposed by Gren- 
ville in 1764 but not actually adopted until the following 

Need of more year. It was known that the revenue provided by the 
act of 1764 was only about one seventh of the amount 
needed to support the army in America. The govern- 
ment, therefore, looked about for other American sources 
of revenue, and concluded that the simplest method was 
a stamp tax, requiring the use of stamps on a great 
variety of official and legal documents, which were neces- 
sary or desirable for the orderly transaction of public and 
private business. 

Before putting the Stamp Act through the House of 



THE STAMP ACT 405 

Commons, Grenville asked the colonial assemblies to sug- The Stamp 
crest alternative methods of securing a steady revenue; ^ ^^^ ' 
but they had nothing to propose except a continuance of 
tlie old requisition system. Petitions sent from America 
against the new tax were not taken seriously; for, as Gren- 
ville said, "all men wished not to be taxed." So in the 
early months of 1765 the Stamp Act was passed with little 
opposition. Franklin, then in England as agent for Penn- 
sylvania, was chiefly interested in trying to have that colony Franklin's 
made into a royal province. A few years before he had ^ittitude. 
argued against parliamentary taxation; but he does not 
seem to have been much excited about the question at 
this time. In one of his arguments in favor of a royal gov- 
ernment in Pennsylvania, he said that the British author- 
ities might think it necessary to secure "some revenue" 
from the American trade for the purpose of supporting the 
troops and that his fellow provincials might be reconciled 
to it "after a few years' experience." Franklin opposed 
the act, noting provisions which he thought particularly 
hard on lawyers and on his fellow craftsmen, the printers; but 
he thought it no more practicable to defeat the bill than to 
prevent "the sun's setting." He even secured a collector's 
commission for one of his Pennsylvania friends, and sug- 
gested that tactful management of that office might ''by 
degrees" lessen its unpopularity. 

While this momentous business was being done in Eng- Sources of 
land, a storm was fast gathering in America. The stricter '^ojlleQf *^'^ 
enforcement of the acts of trade was cutting the profits 
of colonial merchants, especially in the West India trade, 
which supplied the northern colonies not only with sugar 
and molasses but also with hard money. Attempts to make 
up the shortage of specie by the issue of legal-tender paper 
money were blocked, for New England, by the British 
law of 1751; and the Currency Act of 1764 applied this 
restriction to all the colonies. To these grievances there 



4o6 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



Statements 
of the 
American 
case. Otis. 



Patrick 
Henry. 



were now added the new duties imposed by the Sugar Act 
and the Stamp Act. It is to be remembered, too, that while 
some of the earlier measures had comparatively little effect 
on the southern planters, the Stamp Act, establishing for 
the first time a direct internal tax, created a new issue 
which could be presented to merchants, planters, and 
farmers alike. 

The debate in the colonies began even before the Stamp 
Act was passed, with some vigorous pamphlets setting forth 
the American point of view. One of the most aggressive was 
James Otis 's Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved. 
Otis now applied to the Stamp Act his theory that Parliament 
was limited by a fundamental law and that even acts approved 
by King, Lords, and Commons might be unconstitutional 
and invalid. To levy taxes on the colonies without their 
consent or that of persons definitely selected by them was 
"absolutely irreconcilable" with their rights as "British 
subjects and as men." What then was the remedy? Here 
Otis shrank from the extreme application of his principles. 
Though he seemed to believe that unconstitutional leg- 
islation could be corrected by the courts, his practical con- 
clusion in this case was that the power of Parliament was 
" uncontroulable, but by themselves, and we must obey," 
trusting that Parliament itself would reconsider its decision. 

In the preliminary fight against the passage of the Stamp 
Act, Northerners . like Otis of Massachusetts and Stephen 
Hopkins of Rhode Island were probably the most con- 
spicuous. After it became law, the leadership in resistance 
was taken by Virginia. By this time Patrick Henry had 
become a member of the House of Burgesses and was gather- 
ing a group of radical members, some, like himself, from the 
western counties, and others, largely young men, who be- 
longed to the planter class, but were dissatisfied with the 
older leaders. This radical element took up the issue of 
parliamentary taxation and forced through some vigorous 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST TAXATION 407 

resolutions, asserting the right of the Virginians to be Virginia 
governed by their own assembly in matters of taxation and ■^'^^'^'^^^^'^s. 
"internal pohce." The fiery speech of Henry in support of 
these resolutions has not come down to us in any accurate 
form; but it certainly made a strong impression on friends 
and enemies alike, with its daring comparison of George III 
with Caesar and Charles I. To Governor Fauquier writing 
home to England, Henry's language appeared "very 
indecent"; but Thomas Jefferson, a young law student in 
Williamsburg, listened with admiration to an orator who 
seemed "to speak as Homer wrote," 

Virginia had gone on record, and in other colonies, where Economic 
men were hesitating and final submission to the Stamp Act tutionaJ^^' 
seemed quite possible, the news from the Old Dominion arguments, 
proved an "alarm bell to the disaffected." Numerous pam- 
phlets were issued, setting forth a great variety of arguments. 
Efforts were made to convince Parhament that the new taxes 
were unjust because the colonies were already contributing 
liberally to the royal treasury through their commerce, which 
had to pass largely through British ports and was there sub- ' 
ject to British customs. It was also argued that the new 
policies were bad for British as well as American interests. 
Taxation and new trade restrictions were making it harder 
for Americans to spend money on English goods. To press 
tills argument home, the colonists were urged to cut down 
their purchases of imported articles. Sometimes special 
emphasis was laid on the constitutional argument, denying 
the right, as well as the justice and expediency, of colonial 
taxation. Nearly all admitted the general legislative author- \ 
ity of Parliament over the whole empire; but there were a 
few exceptions. Richard Bland, whose learning was much 
admired by his Virginia neighbors, wrote a pamphlet asserting 
in substance that the existing union of England and the 
colonies was simply a personal union like that between 
England and Scotland under the Stuart kings. He agreed 



4o8 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



The 

Stamp Act 
Congress. 



Appeal to 
force. 



that Virginians and New Englanders owed allegiance to 
George III, but denied that Parliament had any real authority 
over them. In 1766, when Bland's pamphlet appeared, few 
Americans were quite so radical as this, but in later years the 
doctrine became more popular. 

Differing as they did in their modes of attack, the sober 
judgment of the Americans was best expressed by the Stamp 
Act Congress, which met in New York in October, 1765. 
Only nine colonies were represented, and one of the assemblies 
which had no chance to choose delegates was Virginia; 
but the Congress was fairly representative of the colonies as 
a whole, including not only radicals but moderates and con- 
servatives as v/ell. Even Massachusetts sent with Otis two 
conservatives, one of whom was chosen president of the 
Congress. Nevertheless the resolutions adopted were 
strongly, though cautiously, worded. The delegates were 
doubtless quite sincere in expressing their loyalty to the 
King. They were even ready to admit "all due subordina- 
tion to that august body the parliament of Great Britain"; 
but "due subordination" did not include taxation because 
the colonists were not and could not be represented in 
Parliament. The Congress had its own theory of represen- 
tation; no one could represent the American colonies ex- 
cept "persons chosen therein by themselves." The resolu- 
tions also objected to the provision recently made for more 
general use of admiralty courts, without juries, in the trial 
of revenue cases. 

Pamphlets and resolutions helped to rally American 
opinion against "taxation without representation" and 
against the new restrictions on trade; but they were not the 
most effective arguments. Whether the Stamp Act was right 
or wrong, the tax evidently could not be collected witliout the 
greatest difficulty. The lives of stamp distributors v/ere made 
miserable by their neighbors and most of them were glad 
to resign. Newspapers Vv^ere published and ship's papers 



THE ROCKINGHAM MINISTRY 409 

issued without the prescribed stamps; after a time the courts 
began to do business in similar disregard of the law. Here 
and there, occurred outrageous acts of violence against 
unpopular officials, of which the colonists themselves were 
soon ashamed, as when a Boston mob attacked the house of 
Chief- Justice Thomas Hutchinson. In fact, the opposition 
which the northern merchants had done so much to stir up 
was getting beyond their control and falling under the 
influence of more radical leaders. Probably the most suc- 
cessful argument against the tax was its effect on British 
trade. Already American purchases from England had fallen j 
off and one colony after another was adopting nonimpor- 
tation agreements which seemed likely to hurt the trade still 
more. Many of the English merchants, therefore, began to 
throw their influence in favor of repealing the Stamp Act. 

Meantime, the GrenviUe ministry had gone out of office. English j 
The King was troubled by the American disturbances; but ^afm^ The 
he had other reasons for the change, not the least of which Rpckmgham 

. . ministry. 

was his personal dislike of Grenville, whom he considered 
too independent and something of a bore. The King was 
ready to take Pitt again; but a satisfactory combination 
could not be made and he therefore had to accept a cabinet 
made up mainly of the " Old Whigs," with the young Mar- 
quis of Rockingham as prime minister, but including some 
members from other factions. The King, however, liked 
the new ministers no better than their predecessors, and 
their failure to secure Pitt's cooperation left them without 
first-rate leadership. It was this comparatively weak govern- 
ment which in the winter of 1765-1766 had to face the 
American uprising against the Stamp Act. 

The ministry was certainly in a trying position. Some- Debate on 
thing had to be done to restore order in America and revive *^^'^^t'°°- 
colonial commerce; but it was not easy to repeal the Stamp 
Act without seeming to countenance colonial arguments 
against the authority of Parliament. In this dilemma, three 



4IO IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 

possible policies were proposed by representative leaders. 
Grenville and his friends stood firmly for the absolute 
sovereignty of Parliament. They were equally certain that 
this authority had been rightly exercised in the passage of 
the Stamp Act and that its repeal would be a humiliating 
and disastrous surrender to rebellious subjects. Grenville 
was supported by Chief- Justice Mansfield, the greatest law- 
yer of the time, who made a strong legal argument against 
the American doctrine of representation. Parliament, he 
said, was the sovereign authority for the whole empire. In 
the House of Commons were represented not only the small 
fraction of the English people who actually voted for mem- 
bers, but the whole nation, including the dominions beyond 
the sea. When, therefore, the colonists claimed that Parlia- 
ment represented only those who elected its members, their 
argument went squarely against the orthodox English theory 
of representation. The colonists had repeatedly submitted 
to acts of Parliament, and the distinction which they now 
made between external duties and internal taxes was, in 
his opinion, quite illogical. 

The Grenville-Mansfield doctrine was vigorously at- 
tacked by Pitt and he, too, was supported by a distin- 
guished lawyer, Lord Camden. Pitt believed as strongly 
as Mansfield in the lawmaking power of Parliament over 
the whole empire; but he insisted that taxation was some- 
thing quite distinct from legislation. The House of Com- 
mons could rightly grant the money of English subjects at 
home because it was chosen by the substantial landowners 
of England, who ''virtually represent the rest of the inhabit- 
ants"; but to extend this notion of "virtual representa- 
tion" to America was "the most contemptible idea that ever 
entered into the head of a man. " Like the Americans, Pitt 
distinguished between taxes levied for revenue and duties 
for the regulation of trade, even though the latter might 
incidentally bring in revenue. The latter were justifiable, 



THE STAMP ACT REPEALED 411 

the former were not. So Pitt said, "I rejoice that America 
has resisted." 

Powerful as Pitt stUl was, responsiblility for leadership Policy of the 
rested with the Rockingham mmistry, which finally decided ministry. ^™ 
to take a somewhat different position from that of either 7 
Grenville or Pitt. The ministers did not deny the Mans- ' " 
field theory of the absolute sovereignty of Parliament; but 
as a practical matter, they decided against the stamp 
tax because it was unfair, contrary to the spirit of 
English liberty, and likely to do more harm than good. 
So they proposed to repeal the Stamp Act; but also to 
adopt a resolution asserting that Parliament might at its 
discretion bind the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." 

On the same day that Lord Mansfield made his memorable Franklin 
speech, the House of Commons ordered Franklin to appear House of 
before it for examination. Franklin now declared emphati- Commons, 
cally that the Americans would resist all internal taxes. 
So far, he said, they had been entirely loyal, accepting even 
the duties which had been laid on their external trade; but, 
if the discussion continued, they might forget that distinction 
and reject any kind of tax or duty. Already, he thought, the 
feeling of Americans toward England had been changed for 
the worse. Formerly they had been proud to "indulge in the 
fashions and manufactures of Great Britain"; now it was 
their pride to "wear their old clothes over again till they can 
make new ones. " The Stamp Act could not be enforced by 
the British army; if troops were used for this purpose, 
they would not find a revolution, but they might make 
one. 

In March, 1766, Parliament voted by a decisive Stamp Act 
majority in favor of repeal. At the same time, however, tlie Declamtory 
Declaratory Act was passed, condemning the American ^^^' 
doctrine that Parliament could not legally tax the colonies 
and asserting in the most sweeping language that Parliament 
had and "ought to have" authority to "bind tlie colonies 



412 



IMPERIAL PROBLEMS AND POLICIES 



and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great 
Britain, in all cases whatsoever." 



General 
references. 



Collected 
sources. 



English 
politics. 



English 
sources. 



Controversy 
in America. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Andrews, Colonial Period, ch. X. Becker, C. L., Eve of the 
American Revolution, 1-115. Channing, United States, III, chs. 
I-III. Fisher, S. G., Struggle for American Independence, I, chs. 
I- VIII (iconoclastic). Frothingham, R., Rise of the Republic, 
ch. V. Howard, G. E., Preliminaries of the Revolution, chs. I-IX. 
Lecky, W, E. H., England in the Eighteenth Century, III (fair- 
minded British statement; same material in Lecky, American 
Revolution). Winsor, America, VI, 1-34. Bancroft, United States 
(author's last revision). III, chs. I-XVI, and Beer, G. L., British 
Colonial Policy, 1754-1765, chs. IX-XIV, illustrate the difference 
between older and later views. 

Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 53, 55-60. Hart, Contempo- 
raries, II, chs. XXI, XXIII, especially no. 143 (Franklin's ex- 
amination). Hart and Channing, American History Leaflets, no. 
33 (Writs of Assistance). McLaughhn ct al.. Source Problems 
in U. S. History, Problem II. 

Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, I, chs. I-IX. 
Fitzmaurice, E., Shelburne, I, especially chs. IV- VII. Hunt, W., 
Political History of England, 1760-1801, 1-72. Von Ruville, Pitt, 
III, ch. VIII. WiUiams, B., Chatham, ch. XXI. 

Annual Register. Cobbett, W., Parliamentary History, XVI, 
especially 97-181 (including speeches by Pitt, Grenville, and 
Mansfield), 137-161 (Franklin's examination). Grenville, G., 
Papers. Jenyns, S., Objections to the Taxation of Our American 
Colonics Briefly Considered (1765; also in his Works, II). Hertz, 
G. B., Old Colonial System, ch. IV, and Holland, B., Imperiuni et 
Libertas, pt. I, give recent English views, 

Henry, W. W., Patrick Henry, I, chs. I-IV. Tyler, M. C, 
Patrick Henry, chs. I-V. Hosmer, J. K., S. Adams, chs. I-VI. 
Lincoln, C. H., Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, chs. 
I-VII. McCrady, South Carolina, lyig-ijjd, chs. XXVII, 
XXVIII. Tyler, M. C, Literary History of the American Revo- 
lution, I, chs. I-V. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



413 



Important pamphlets by R. Bland, S. Hopkins, J. Otis. See American 
also writings of Franklin (Smyth edition, IV; or Life Written by ^"'^*^^*- 
Himself, edited by Bigelovv), S. Adams, and J. Adams (Diary in 
Works, II). 

Beer and Alvord as above. Schlesinger, A. M., Colonial Mer- Economic 
chants and the American Revolution {Columbia Studies). Weeden, ^es^em 
New England, II, ch. XIX. Alvord, Illinois Centennial History, problems. 
I, chs. XII-XIII. 

Callender, Selections from EcoJiomic History of the U. S., 122- Sources. 
148. Bogart and Thompson, Readings in Economic History of 
U. S., 143-169. Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. XXII. 



CHAPTER XVIII 
THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766 TO 1774 



The taxa- 
tion issue 
unsettled. 



Lack of 
constructive 
statesman- 
ship. 



Franklin 
on the 
constitution 
of the 
empire. 



The repeal of the Stamp Act did not settle the issue of 
taxation without representation; for Parliament had ex- 
pressly asserted its absolute sovereignty over the colonies, 
and the revenue duties laid by tlie Sugar Act were still in 
force. On the specific issue of the stamp tax, however, the 
Americans had won a notable victory and for the moment 
they were too enthusiastic about that to think much about 
the theory of the Declaratory Act. So Pitt and other friends 
in Parliament were gratefully remembered and George III 
came in for his share of the general good feeling. 

It is easy to see now that no progress had been made 
toward a constructive policy which should safeguard the com- 
mon interests of the empire, including America, and yet har- 
monize with traditional ideals of liberty and self-government. 
Among those common interests was the working out of 
an effective and liberal plan for the management of the great 
undeveloped country beyond the mountains. The revenue 
policy, which was intended to finance the administration of 
the western territory, had broken down; but no other 
solution had been worked out. A few men in England and 
in America were thinking about these matters in a states- 
manlilce spirit, but they were rare exceptions. Franklin was 
one of those exceptional men and for many years had given 
serious thought to the constitutional relations of the colonies 
with the mother country. At one time he thought that a 
legislative union was desirable, with American representa- 
tives sitting side by side with those of England, Wales, and 

414 



PITT AND SHELBURNE 415 

Scotland in the Parliament at Westminster. He concluded, 
however, that British pride would stand in the way. "Every 
man in England," he said, "seems to consider himself a 
piece of a sovereign over America." Meantime, most 
Americans were too much absorbed by local interests and in 
warding off real or supposed encroachments on their rights 
to do any important constructive thinking. So the common 
interests of the English-speaking peoples were largely at 
the mercy of shortsighted politicians. 

About four months after the repeal of the Stamp Act, The 
the Rockingham ministry fell and once more Pitt was called Grafton™" 
in to form a cabinet, this time with the Duke of Grafton, ministry. 
an able young nobleman with some statesmanlilce ideals, 
but an unfortunate personal reputation. Following Pitt's 
theories, the new ministry was made up of men from differ- 
ent groups, so much so that it could not act harmoniously. 
With Pitt at his best the discordant elements might have 
been pulled together; but this was not the case. His pro- 
motion to the House of Lords, as Earl of Chatham, was de- 
scribed with some truth as a "fall upstairs" for the "great 
commoner." Poor health not only robbed him of that ex- 
traordinary vigor which had carried him through his great war 
ministry, but also made it harder for others to work with 
him. After a few months of service, Pitt broke down and 
retired to the country, leaving a practically headless govern- 
ment behind him. 

Two of Pitt's colleagues are especially important for Shelbume 
their part in American affairs. One was the Earl of Shel- problems of 
burne, who, as secretary of state for the Southern Depart- tte West, 
ment, was chiefly responsible for American affairs. Three 
years before, as president of the Board of Trade, he had 
taken a leading part in the discussion which led up to 
the Proclamation of 1763. Tjie reservation of the western 
territory to the Indians was in his mind only a temporary 
policy, to be followed by more constructive measures. 



4l6 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 

After careful study he now favored a policy of westward 
expansion, including land cessions from. the Indians, which 
would open up the territory to new settlers, and the for- 
mation of new governments on liberal principles. He hoped 
to secure the revenue necessary for a progressive policy by 
more businesslike administration of the crown lands in 
America. One of Shelburne's chief advisers was Franklin, 
who, with several prominent associates in England and in 
America, was working for a new colony on the Ohio. Franklin 
argued that the establishment of such colonies would be a 
comparatively cheap way of defending the new territories, 
which might even be made a base for military expeditions 
against the Spaniards in Cuba or Mexico. So, for a time, 
it looked as if British oflEicials might cooperate with repre- 
sentative Americans in promoting a vigorous expansionist 
policy. Perhaps the most tangible outcome of this discussion 
was the treaty of Fort StanwLx, negotiated by Sir William 
Johnson in 1768, by which tlie Iroquois opened up to white 
settlement a large area extending from western New York 
southward to eastern Kentucky. Shelburne was not long 
in office, however, before the American business was taken 
from him and given to Lord Hillsborough, who received the 
new office of secretary of state for the colonies. Under 
Hillsborough's shortsighted management, the opportunity 
for harmonious cooperation was thrown away. 
Charles Meantime, another member of the cabinet was com- 

mitting it to an American policy directly opposed to that 
advocated by Pitt in 1766. This was Charles Townshend, 
who, like Shelburne, had presided over the Board of Trade 
and was interested in American problems, but had a very 
different point of view. Though a member of the Rocking- 
ham ministry, Townshend had previously declared himself 
in favor of parliamentary taxation and close control of the 
colonial governments. Now, in 1767, as chancellor of the 
exchequer, this clever but irresponsible politician was sud- 



THE TOWNSHEND ACTS 417 

denly put in a position to shape the revenue poKcy of the 
government. 

Since more money was needed and the country gentle- Townshend 
men were anxious to keep their own taxes down, Townshend " ^ '^ ' 
suddenly, without consulting his colleagues, pledged him- 
self to find a new revenue in America. The result was the 
fatal Townshend Duty Act, imposing unport duties payable 
in the colonies on tea, paper, glass, and painters' colors. In 
establishing " external duties," Parliament seemed to be 
keeping in mind the distinction made in 1765 by most of the 
American leaders; it was also following a precedent set by the 
Sugar Act of 1764. The preamble was, however, distinctly 
a challenge to the colonies since it declared not only that the 
duties were for revenue, rather than for the purpose of reg- 
ulating commerce, but also that this revenue should be used 
"where it shall be found necessary" to support the pro- 
vincial governments and in particular the courts of law. 
So far as this policy could be made to work, the Americans 
would still support their own governments; but the levying 
of the tax and the use to be made of the money would be 
determined not by the colonial assemblies, but by the Brit- 
ish government. Unfortunately the seriousness of this issue 
was not generally appreciated and the bill went through 
without much opposition. 

The Duty Act was not the only challenge to American The new 
opinion. The customs service was to be stiffened; the writs skm™f"of 
of assistance attacked by Otis in 1761 were specifically *^"stoms. 
approved and a new customs board was organized for 
America. Hardly less important as a matter of principle New York 
was the act suspending the legislative power of the New suspended. 
York assembly because it had failed to supply certain 
articles required for the soldiers stationed there. If a 
colonial legislature could be ordered to make appropriations 
and punished for not doing so, what became of the American 
doctrine that each assembly was, in its owii sphere, a kind 



.4l8 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 

of parliament? If Parliament could suspend one provmcial 
legislature for a limited time, what was to prevent the same 
sovereign power from abolishing such legislatures altogether? 
These were serious questions, to be raised in such a light- 
hearted fashion. 
American The ablest American critic of the Townshend Acts was 

DickLQson.' J°^^ Dickinson of Pennsylvania, who set forth his views in 
the Letters from a Farmer. Dickinson was a native of Penn- 
sylvania, but received his legal training in the English *'lnns 
of Court, " where he learned more than most Americans about 
the history and spirit of tlie common law. In characteris- 
tic English fashion, he laid more stress on precedents than 
on theories of abstract right. For him the new acts of Parlia- 
ment, including the suspension of the New York legislature, 
were dangerous innovations, contrary to the principles of 
political liberty which Englishmen had claimed for them- 
selves and had embodied also in the government of their 
colonies. Dickinson did not dispute the legislative suprem- 
acy of Parliament, nor attack the general system of the 
Navigation Acts. He did not even condemn the restrictions 
on colonial manufactures, since they were part of a large im- 
perial policy. Lilce Pitt, however, Dickinson denied that 
the right to tax was a necessary part of the sovereign authority 
of Parliament over the colonies. He also discarded the dis- 
tinction between external and internal taxes, so long as either 
was laid for the purpose of raising revenue. Finally he 
pointed out that if colonial governments could be supported 
without grants from their assemblies, the latter would soon 
cease to have any real power. Dickinson was by no means a 
violent radical. He tried rather to persuade Englishmen that 
the new policies were unjust, un-English, and contrary 
to their own permanent interests. At the same time, 
he urged Americans to refrain from violent methods. They 
should begin with petitions and remonstrances, he said; 
then they could use economic pressure by refusing to buy 



OPPOSITION IN MASSACHUSETTS 419 

British goods; only if these failed, would it be right to use 
force. 

When the Letters from a Farmer were published in London, Troubles 
Lord Hillsborough called them ''extremely wild"; but he chuStT" 
soon received news from Massachusetts which made Dickin- 
son 's articles seem quite tame. In that province, the short- 
lived peace after the repeal of the Stamp Act had been broken 
by disagreeable controversies between the governor and the 
assembly. The Massachusetts people were, therefore, al- 
ready irritated, when they were suddenly brought into 
uncomfortably close contact with Townshend's reorganized 
customs service, of which Boston became the American head- 
quarters. Influential merchants, who were used to bringing 
in Madeira wine without paying duties, began to find the 
business somewhat less safe. One such merchant was John 
Hancock, whose sloop Liberty was seized by the customs 
officials and later condemned by the admiralty court, not, 
however, before some of the wine had been landed and several 
officers roughly handled. 

The people who watched these proceedings with more or Conserva- 
less active resentment were not all of one mind. Many of ^^^^ j^'^ 
the well-to-do merchants were much less interested in con- 
stitutional theories than in preventing awkward interference 
with their trade. They had gone very far in stirring opposi- 
tion to recent measures of the British government, but they 
were certainly not aiming at revolution. Another and more 
radical group, whose help the merchants sometimes found 
convenient, included many of the smaller business men and 
farmers. These people were jealous of the ruling class among 
their neighbors and they disliked some imperial measures 
which the merchants found quite satisfactory, as, for instance, 
restrictions on the issue of paper money. The old Puritan 
traditions were also much stronger with these men than with 
the social leaders of the seaboard towns, and this aggressive 
Puritan spirit had just been stirred by a renewal of the old 



420 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 

proposal to establish Anglican bishopncs in the colonies. 
Doubtless this religious issue helped to put most of the Con- 
gregational ministers on the radical side in the whole polit- 
ical controversy with the mother country; and they were 
quite willing to take their politics into the pulpit. 
Samuel The chief leader of the Massachusetts radicals was 

Samuel Adams, who first dominated the Boston town meet- 
ing and later became the most influential member of the 
House of Representatives. The loyalist politician and his- 
torian, Thomas Hutchinson, denounced Adams as a dema- 
gogue, who as town collector had misused public funds and 
was now playing recklessly on the passions of the mob. 
Hutchinson was deeply prejudiced, however, and his state- 
ment can hardly be taken at its face value. Doubtless 
Adams was unsuccessful in business and careless in his 
public accounts; but it is equally certain that most of his 
fellow citizens believed in his integrity and that he did not 
make money in politics. Even hostile critics admitted his 
skill as a political organizer, and he was successful, partly 
at least, because he shared the views of his followers. 
Adams's Adams 's political theories are set forth in a large number 

theories'. o^ papers drafted by him and adopted by the Massachusetts 
House under his influence. Like Dickinson, he appealed to 
the English constitution; but he emphasized the "natural 
rights" of the colonists, as well as the doubtful theory that 
colonial governments rested on a compact or agreement be- 
tween the King and the first colonists. The Massachusetts 
radicals still denied that they were working for independ- 
ence; and the House of Representatives still acknowledged 
that Parliament was the supreme legislature of the empire. 
They insisted, however, that in the British Empire, as in 
"all free states" there was a "fixed," if not a written, "con- 
stitution" which "neither the supreme legislature nor the 
supreme executive can alter." 

Of all the Massachusetts documents, the most obnoxious 



MASSACHUSETTS AND VIRGINIA 421 

to the home government was the Circular Letter sent by The Massa- 
the House of Representatives to tlie other colonial assemblies, Civ!."«/ar 
urging them to cooperate against the policies of the ministry. ^^"^■'■• 
To avert this danger, Lord Hillsborough, as secretary of 
state for the colonies, ordered the Massachusetts House to 
rescind the circular; but the demand was rejected by an 
overwhelming majority. Thereupon Governor Bernard 
obeyed his instructions and dissolved the assembly. The 
other assemblies answered Massachusetts with sympa- 
thetic resolutions, which were backed up by more or less 
effective nonimportation agreements against British goods. 
The most important provincial resolutions of this period The vir- 
were the "Virginia Resolves" of 1769, introduced by George folves, 1^769. 
Washington, now a prosperous planter and by no means a 
radical democrat. Even he, however, was now writing 
impatiently about "our lordly masters in Great Britain" 
and proposing to boycott British trade and manufactures. 
In the last resort he thought an appeal to arms would be 
justifiable. 

One measure especially attacked by the Virginians was New 
the joint address of the two houses of Parliament asking the measures 
King to apply in the colonies an old statute of Henry VIII, 
authorizing the trial in England of persons who had com- 
mitted crimes outside of the "realm." This proposal was 
aimed chiefly at the Massachusetts leaders, who were held 
responsible for the rebellious attitude of that colony. 
Another measure, not altogether unnatural in view of the 
violent resistance offered to the commissioners of customs, 
was the sending of two regiments of British regulars from 
Halifax to Boston. It was equally natural, however, that 
the presence of these redcoats should be resented by the 
Bostonians and that the rougher elements should go farther 
in expressing their dislike than the more cautious leaders. 
Out of this strained situation came the so-called "Boston "Boston 
Massacre" of March 5, 1770, when some soldiers, under 



422 



THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 



Effects of 

colonial 

opposition. 



Reorganiza- 
tion of the 
British 
ministry. 
Lord North. 



considerable provocation, fired on their assailants and killed 
four of the citizens. Samuel Adams now came to the front 
again and with the Boston populace behind him forced the 
governor to transfer the soldiers to Castle William, outside 
the town. A more difficult but highly creditable stand 
was taken by John Adams, who helped to prevent injustice 
by acting as legal counsel for the British officer in command 
and securing his acquittal on the charge of murder. 

The methods used against the Townshend duties were 
like those which had proved successful against the Stamp 
Act. Again there was a steady flow of pamphlets and 
resolutions; the commercial boycotts cut down imports 
from England; and again there were numerous acts of 
violence. Once more, too, colonial opposition, combined 
with other forces, brought a partial reversal of policy. 
It happened just then that business conditions in England 
lessened somewhat the damage done by the American 
boycotts; but English politicians and business men realized 
that the Townshend duties were working against the very 
interests which the old commercial system was intended to 
promote. 

Meantime, British politics had changed in some re- 
spects for the worse since 1766. After an unusually corrupt 
and disorderly campaign, a new Parliament was elected 
in 1768. Franklin, who watched the political game with 
much interest, thought the prospect for any statesmanlike 
handling of American affairs was very black. By 1769 
there were radical changes in the ministry. Chatham and 
Shelburne were now out and politicians less sympathetic 
with America were gaining strength, including the "King's 
Friends," or court party, and the "Bloomsbury gang," 
or Bedford faction. The latter were especially sharp in 
their criticism of the Americans and the King himself 
now took a similar attitude. The man who was coming 
to the front in these cabinet changes was Lord North, who 



THE "PREAMBULARY TAX" 423 

succeeded Townshend as Chancellor of the Exchequer and 
finally in 1770 became prime minister. North was an able 
parliamentary leader and was personally more liberal 
than some of his associates; his worst fault was that he 
yielded to the King's desires to an extent quite inconsist- 
ent with his duty as a responsible minister. So it came 
about that his name is linked with that of George III in 
the measures which finally split the old empire in two. 

North realized that the Townshend Duty Act was Townshend 
costing more than it brought into the treasury and was ^q^^J ^^^^^'^ 
also unsound as a commercial measure, since it imposed on tea. 
duties on British manufactures. Accordingly it was de- 
cided to repeal all these duties except that on tea, about 
which George III later said that there must "always be one 
tax to keep up the right. " With the tea duty there remained 
the offensive preamble declaring it expedient to raise a 
revenue in America. In the end this "preambulary 
tax," as Burke contemptuously called it, proved disastrous; 
but for the present no such outcome was in sight. In 
fact, many of the merchants lost their enthusiasm for 
continued opposition and in one colony after another the 
nonimportation agreements were relaxed. So far as tea 
was concerned, the matter was not of much practical im- 
portance, since large quantities were smuggled in from 
Holland. It looked, therefore, as if the storm might blow 
over. 

The responsibility for renewing the controversy rested Controversy 
about equally with the extremists on both sides. The extremists, 
radicals did what they could to keep tlie fires burning, and 
on the other side there were tactless officials who played 
into the hands of their opponents by inconsiderate acts 
or too much talking. In Massachusetts these two elements 
are best represented by Samuel Adams and Thomas Hutch- 
inson, who usually managed between them to set the polit- 
ical pot boiling whenever it showed any signs of cooling off. 



424 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 

Governor Hutchinson, who became governor in 1770, belonged 

inson. ^^ ^j^ ^j^ Massachusetts family and had served many 
years in the legislature, where he did some excellent work, 
especially in helping to put the Massachusetts currency on 
a sound basis. He was also a real scholar, as may be seen 
in his History of Massachusetts Bay. Hutchinson did not 
approve of the Stamp Act but he disliked the radical lead- 
ers and, like many other well-to-do people, regarded the 
connection with the mother country as a valuable conserv- 
ative influence. This conservative spirit was naturally 
strengthened by his career as an officeholder under the 
Crown, — as chief justice, lieutenant governor, and gov- 
ernor. So he became more and more a defender of the 
imperial government against colonial opposition. Un- 
fortunately for him, he was quite overmatched as a poli- 
tician by the opposition leaders, especially by Samuel 
Adams, who was quick to take advantage of the governor's 
mistakes. Hutchinson was not long in office before he got 
into a series of debates on the sovereignty of Parliament. 
The radical leaders were glad of the chance to publish 
their views, and so popular feeling, which had seemed to be 
quieting down, was again stirred up. In the heat of con- 
troversy each side naturally became more aggressive; and 
moderate men were gradually, often reluctantly, forced 
to take sides with one set of extremists or the other. 

In the neighboring colony of Rhode Island there was 
no royal governor, but here too there were imperial officials, 
— customs collectors, naval commanders, and an admiralty 
court, — all trying to see that duties were collected and 
the Navigation Acts enforced. These royal agents were 
worse off in Rhode Island than in Massachusetts because 
the colony government was entirely in the hands of elective 
officers, whose cooperation in enforcing unpopular measures 
The Gaspee could not be expected. Even acts of violence could not be 
^ ^^' prevented or punished. When, for instance, a mob de- 



RADICAL AGITATION 425 

stroyed the Gaspee, a royal vessel employed in the revenue 
service, no responsible person would inform against the of- 
fenders. The Gaspee affair and certain proposals made by 
the British authorities in this connection, including the 
transportation of suspected persons to England for trial, 
had a marked effect outside of Rhode Island and stimulated 
the radical party to more effective organization. In 1772 
Samuel Adams organized for Massachusetts an elaborate Committees 
system of town "Committees of Correspondence," which respondence. 
served to keep the radicals in touch with each other, and 
in 1773 the Virginians took the initiative in a still more 
important movement. 

In Virginia, as in New England, friction had developed unrest in 
in many different ways. Even in the Old Dominion, '^"'g"^'^- 
the proposal of a colonial bishop was warmly debated by 
the House of Burgesses, which passed a resolution against 
it. There were economic issues, also, such as the perennial 
friction between the planters and their British creditors, 
which were made more acute by a period of " hard times." 
The Vhginia planters also took a keen interest in strictly 
constitutional matters and in safeguarding colonial self- 
government against imperialistic and centralizing tendencies. 
Thus the spirit of discontent was fairly general. Under these 
circumstances some of the younger Virginians, including Virginia 
Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, '■^'^"^^'^• 
decided, as Jefferson wrote many years later, that the older 
members were not "up to the point of forwardness and zeal 
which the times required." This radical group now per- 
suaded the House of Burgesses to appoint a provincial 
committee of correspondence to keep in touch with similar 
committees in other provinces. The Virginia plan was 
heartily approved by radicals elsewhere and was gradually 
adopted in other colonies. 

Notwithstanding all this organized agitation, the radi- Conservative 
cals were for a time disappointed with the results. Many "^°ces. 



426 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1766-1774 

of the "best people" held themselves aloof; they could get 
tea from smugglers and they were tired of denying them- 
selves conveniences or losing business profits in order to 
protest against the tea duty. The wealthier merchants, 
especially, now realized that when the populace had once 
been stirred up to violent measures, it could not easily be 
kept in hand. Again, however, the radicals received val- 
uable assistance from the home government. In May, 
1773, Parliament passed a new measure which for the time 
being brought radicals and moderates together. 
The Tea Act The Tea Act of 1773 had two principal objects. The 
^ ^"^' first was to help the East India Company, which controlled 
the Asiatic tea trade and was then financially embarrassed, 
by giving it a larger market in the colonies. This object 
was to be accomplished, without lowering the duty paid in 
America, by refunding to the company all import duties 
collected in England on teas which were afterwards shipped 
i to the colonies. The company was also given the new priv- 
/ ilege of engaging directly in the American tea trade, through 
its own agencies. The American consumer could now buy 
tea at a price lower than that charged in England, and the 
company could compete successfully in the American market 
not only with the private merchants who had previously 
carried on the business but even with the dealers in smuggled 
tea. The other object of the act was, of course, to accustom 
the colonists to paying the duty, even tliough the amount 
collected was almost negligible. 
Colonial The action of Parliament on the tea duty soon brought 

together in opposition some of the most influential elements 
in American society. The private merchants and even the 
smugglers feared the competition of a powerful corporate 
monopoly, while leaders like Samuel Adams were deter- 
mined to resist this new effort to establish the taxing power 
of Parliament. So when the East India Company's ships 
arrived in American ports, they found a formidable 



resistance. 



COERCIVE ACTS OF 1774 427 

combination organized against them. Once more men of 
large interests and social prominence were working with 
radicals who had no such interests at stake, and much less 
respect for vested rights. The measures adopted varied 
according to local conditions. In New York and Philadel- 
phia the masters of tea ships were persuaded to turn back 
without unloading the tea. At Charleston cargoes were 
landed only to repose harmlessly in the government ware- 
house. In Boston the proceedings were more spectacular 
because the tea ships, having once entered the harbor, were 
held there by Governor Hutchinson's refusal to issue clear- Boston 
ance papers for their return. The result was the famous ^^ ^'^^^' 
Boston Tea Party, in which the objectionable cargoes were 
thrown into the sea. In these various ways the opposition 
leaders accomplished the same essential object of prevent- 
ing the sale of the company's tea; but in England the 
Boston proceedings, with their wholesale destruction of 
property, naturally attracted special attention. 

To moderate Englishmen, and even to a man like Frank- Coercive 
lin, who kept in touch with English public opinion, the ^*^^^° ^'^'^^' 
Boston Tea Party seemed a serious blunder. The whole 
proceeding was not only a deliberate defiance of Parliament, 
the most powerful legislature in the world; it showed also 
reckless disregard of property rights. "I suppose," said 
Franklin, "we never had, since we were a people, so few 
friends in Britain." When the news reached London, about 
the end of January, the ministry decided to take drastic 
action. Early in March the King reported to Parliament 
the "unwarrantable practices" in America and more 
particularly "the violent and outrageous proceedings" in 
Boston. The speech was followed by a series of coercive 
bills which were pushed through Parliament rapidly and 
by large majorities. The first of the coercive acts was 
the Boston Port Bill, closing that port to commerce until Boston Port 
the Bostonians should compensate the owners of the tea ' * 



428 THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1 766-1774 

and give assurance of future good behavior; this was a 
punitive measure pure and simple. Another law, the Massa- 
chusetts Government Act, raised a more serious issue, 
since it made permanent changes in the constitution of 
a chartered colony. 
Massachu- The idea of reconstructing the chartered colonies, so as 

ment Act™" ^o bring them more completely under royal control, had 
been discussed for a hundred years; but most of the older 
Whig leaders hesitated about carrying the policy to its 
logical conclusion. Now, however, the feeling against the 
New Englanders was so intense that even the most extreme 
measures could be carried through. Some of the liberals 
tried to stem the tide, notably Edmund Burke, who de- 
clared that the ministry had been thinking too much about 
theories of sovereignty and not enough about the best way 
to secure harmonious cooperation. Under the old system 
Parliament had regulated colonial trade but had refrained 
from taxing the Americans. Wliy should this policy, under 
which the empire had prospered, be changed to satisfy a 
theory which, whether right or wrong, was bound to cause 
serious friction? It is doubtful whether this negative policy 
was really adequate; at any rate, it v/as too tame for the 
politicians who controlled Parliament. So, in direct con- 
travention of the royal charter, the government of Massa- 
chusetts was radically changed. Councilors were not to 
be elected, but appointed by the King; judges were brought 
more fully under the control of the governor; and juries 
were no longer to be elected by the people but chosen by 
the sheriffs. The town meetings, which had been resolving 
freely on imperial problems, were to be kept strictly to local 
business, transacted, except by special permission of the 
governor, only at certain fixed times. To the Massachu- 
setts theory that "in all free states the constitution is fixed" 
the answer was now given that the Massachusetts con- 
stitution was what Parliament chose to make it. 



THE QUEBEC ACT 429 

So far as constitutional principles were concerned, the other 



coercive 
measures. 



Massachusetts Government Act was the most important of 
tlie coercive measures. Two other acts intended to 
strengthen the government in its dealings with the rebel- 
lious colonists were the Act for the Impartial Administra- 
tion of Justice and a new Quartering Act. The former law 
enabled royal officials, who thought they could not get 
a fair trial on charges brought agauist them in the courts 
of any colony, to transfer their cases either to some other 
colony or to England. Probably this was not unreasonable 
in a time of so much excitement; but two years later the 
Declaration of Independence asserted that its purpose was 
to protect lawless officials by "mock" trials. 

Quite different from these coercive acts, though gen- The Quebec 
erally associated with them, was the Quebec Act, whose features, 
main object was to correct certain defects in the government 
of that province which had developed since its organization 
under the Proclamation of 1763. Evidently a colony in- 
habited mostly by Frenchmen could not be governed on 
strictly English lines. It did not seem practicable, for 
instance, to install at once a system of representative gov- 
ernment among people who had never been accustomed to 
anything of the kind. Again, the treaty by which the Brit- 
ish acquired Canada promised that the religious and legal 
institutions of the French settlers should be respected, and 
it seemed desirable that these pledges should be carried 
out by legislation, not only as a matter of justice but in order 
to secure the loyalty of the Canadian population. For the 
present, therefore, Quebec was to be governed without 
a representative assembly; English law was to apply in 
criminal cases, but in civil cases the old French customs were 
continued, including the trial of such cases without a jury; 
the customary rights of the Catholic clergy were recognized, 
including that of collecting tithes. So far as the Canadian 
population was concerned, these were the important matters. 



430 



THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1 766-1 774 



Objections 
to the 
Quebec Act. 



The West. 



Franklin and 
the Hutchin- 
son letters. 



During the debate on tliis bill, there was some sharp 
criticism. Ministers were accused of setting up an arbi- 
trary government, depriving Englishmen of trial by jury, 
and being too liberal with the Catholics. These objections 
were also urged in America, but the chief grievance of the 
English colonists was that the boundaries of Quebec were 
extended south and west to the Ohio and the Mississippi, 
thus including a region covered by several of the old sea- 
to-sea charters, in which traders, land speculators, and 
colony promoters were keenly interested. Some Americans 
looked for the extension of the existing colonies westward; 
others, with some encouragement from the British minis- 
try, planned to establish new colonies. Treaties had also 
been made with the Indians opening up new lands for settle- 
ment. Now this land of promise was annexed to a province 
inhabited mainly by aliens and governed on principles 
radically different from those prevailing in the older Eng- 
lish commonwealths. As a measure for the government of 
Canada, the law was on the whole just and fair; but Ameri- 
cans generally saw in it only one more example of un- 
reasonable opposition to the westward expansion of their 
settlements and their free institutions. 

The same ministry w^hich put through the coercive 
acts also alienated the most statesmanlike representative 
of American public opinion in England. Benjamin Frank- 
lin was an effective colonial agent, but he was quite capable 
of rising above provincial prejudices. As deputy post- 
master-general for the colonies, he held oflEice under the 
Crown and was on friendly terms with some of the leading 
ministers. It became known, however, that he had secured 
and sent back to Massachusetts private letters written 
from that province by Governor Hutchinson and other 
loyaHst leaders. The ideas expressed by Hutchinson in 
these letters were partly those which he had stated pub- 
licly; the point most emphasized was the need of vigorous 



RESISTANCE IN MASSACHUSETTS 43 1 

measures to curb the radical element. Having received the 
correspondence, the Massachusetts leaders proceeded to 
publish it for the purpose of breaking down Hutchinson's 
influence. Franklin was sharply criticized for such use of 
this correspondence -and, on January 29, 1774, when he 
appeared before a committee of the Privy Council to urge 
Hutchinson's removal from office, he was savagely attacked 
by Solicitor-General Wedderburn. This meeting was largely 
attended by councilors and others, who, as Franklin grimly 
remarked, seemed "to enjoy highly the entertainment," Franklin 
frequently breaking out in loud applause. This humiUating ^"pme . 
experience was immediately followed by Franklin's dismissal 
from the postal service. His conduct was not above criti- 
cism, but the attack upon him went beyond the bounds of 
decency and proved a serious blunder. 

By the summer of 1774, the new ministerial policies Resistance 
were being inaugurated in Massachusetts. In place of "[ju^ffg'^' 
Hutchinson, who now sailed for England, the governorship 
was given to a military man. General Gage, who had been 
for some time the commander in chief of the British regu- 
lars in America. The Boston Port Bill was no idle threat 
but a stern reality and presently there came royal commis- 
sions for the new "mandamus councilors," marking the 
end of the old constitution. Meantime, the radical leaders 
had gone too far to draw back and soon took up the chal- 
lenge, declaring that the new government was founded on 
a plain usurpation of power by Parliament. Under the 
leadership of Boston, the towns of Suffolk County worked 
out a plan of resistance, which was summed up in The Suffolk 
the "Suffolk Resolves" of September, 1774. The "man- ^''°*^''- 
damns councilors" were set aside and those who were not 
already frightened into resigning were warned to do so at 
once. Sheriffs and other officers were told to ignore the 
judges appointed under the new law, and town collectors 
were advised to hold back taxes from the provincial treasury. 



432 



THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1 766-1 774 



Attitude 
of the 
middle 
colonies. 



Virginia and 
the first 
Continental 
Congress. 



A provincial congress was elected as the central agency for 
this organized resistance and plans were set on foot for a 
popular militia independent of the governor. So, over 
against Gage's establishment in Boston, a new government 
was gradually taking shape, quite irregular, no doubt, but 
no more so, according to the popular leaders, than the rival 
organization. 

The success of this experiment in revolutionary gov- 
ernment depended largely on the attitude of the other 
colonies; and that was still uncertain. Sympathy for the 
hardships of Boston was widespread; but many moderate 
people thought Massachusetts had been overradical. The 
Puritan traditions of New England and its supposed "lev- 
eling spirit" were not popular with the merchants and 
gentry of Nev/ York, who feared that a break with England 
would mean civil v/ar among themselves. In Pennsylvania, 
the old Quaker ruling class, though ready at times to defend 
its own rights, was afraid of violent methods. The Penn- 
sylvania conservatives were ably led by Joseph Galloway, 
then speaker of the House of Representatives; even Dick- 
inson, the writer of the Farmer^s Letters, feared that Massa- 
chusetts had gone too far. Even in the middle colonies, 
however, the radicals were gaining ground. In Pennsyl- 
vania, for instance, the workmen and small traders of Phil- 
adelphia were combining with the back-country people to 
demand a larger share in the provincial government as well 
as more decided opposition to the policies of the British 
ministry. These radical elements now organized local com- 
mittees and a provincial convention which, though with- 
out a.ny legal authority, could bring pressure to bear upon 
the more conservative members of the regular assembly. 

While the middle colonies wavered, the radicals were 
encouraged by the attitude of Virginia, which had somewhat 
more prestige than the New England group. Here too 
there were radicals and conservatives; but the two ele- 



THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 433 

ments were less irreconcilable than in Massachusetts and 
among the "Whigs" there were many substantial land- 
owners. So it came about that in May, 1774, the Virginia 
burgesses agreed to call a provincial congress, which in turn 
was to choose delegates to a "Continental Congress," for 
the purpose of taking counsel with the "Whigs" in other 
colonies. These Virginia delegates were a strong and repre- 
sentative group. Radical agitators, like Patrick Henry and 
Richard Henry Lee, were included; but Washington was 
also among them and the delegation was headed by Peyton 
Randolph, one of the "old guard" whose power Henry 
and his friends had been trying to curb. One colony after 
another fell in line and in September, 1774, when the Congress 
assembled in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia, every colony 
except Georgia was represented. The delegates were chosen 
in various ways, sometimes by colonial assemblies, some- 
times by unofiBcial conventions, and sometimes by local 
authorities. It is quite misleading, however, to speak of 
these people as irresponsible and impecunious agitators. 
Many were prosperous merchants and landowners; in the 
elegant mansions of some of the Philadelphia Whigs, visit- 
ing delegates were entertained with "sinful" feasts, which 
John Adams describes with evident pleasure. 

The members of this truly "continental" assembly The problem 
could see, as few of tliem had seen before, the varied elements under- "^ 
of which America was composed. Anglicans and Puritans, standing. 
Quakers, and even the much-distrusted Catholics, all saw 
the necessity of mutual understanding and cooperation. 
John Adams, who was a conscientious churchgoer, visited 
Moravian, Methodist, and Baptist meetings and was im- 
pressed by the stately services of the Roman Church. His 
"old Puritan" cousin, Samuel Adams, was less liberal, but 
he too could sometimes sacrifice his prejudices, as when 
he proposed that an Episcopal clergyman should offer 
prayer before the Congress. 



434 



THE EVE OF REVOLUTION, 1 766-1 774 



Radical and 
conservative 
parties. 



Galloway 
and his plan 
of union. 



The Decla- 
ration and 
Resolves. 



Com- 
promises. 



Not only were there old prejudices to be removed; 
there were also sharp differences of opinion on current 
issues. Sherman of Connecticut denied altogether the 
legislative authority of Parliament. According to Patrick 
Henry, the old governments were already dissolved and 
the Congress should work out a new system. Alarmed by 
such radical ideas, the conservatives felt the necessity of 
offering some constructive plan. Their chief spokesman 
was Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania, who with the 
support of some New York and South Carolina delegates, 
proposed a kind of imperial constitution, establishing a 
general legislative authority which could regulate American 
affairs without violating the principles of English liberty 
as commonly understood in America. This authority he 
proposed to divide between Parliament and an American 
legislature consisting of representatives from the colonial 
assemblies, the consent of both these bodies being required 
for imperial legislation affecting America. In time of war 
the American legislature could levy taxes independently. 
The Galloway plan, which was somewhat similar to the 
Albany plan of 1754, was supported not only by loyalists, or 
Tories, but by men like John Jay and Edward Rutledge, 
who afterwards worked for American independence. The 
radicals were able, however, to discredit the proposal as a 
loyalist scheme to prevent effective action in defense of 
American interests. 

Gradually differences of opinion were overcome and a 
substantial majority of the delegates met on common ground. 
The New England radicals gained a clear victory when 
Congress approved the revolutionary program set forth 
in the Suffolk Resolves. In discussing the basis of Ameri- 
can rights, some emphasized "natural rights," while others 
regarded the English constitution and the colonial charters 
as more important. On these and similar questions com- 
promise was necessary; in the "Declaration and Resolves" 



THE "CONTINENTAL ASSOCIATION" 435 

as finally adopted, "natural rights," the British constitution, 
and the charters were all given a place. As to the theory 
of parliamentary sovereignty, the delegates were of different 
minds; but the Congress, while denying the right of Par- 
liament to tax the colonies, made no objection to laws 
which were clearly limited to the regulation of commerce. 
Some questions were also avoided by limiting the list of 
grievances to those which had arisen since 1763. 

More important than this statement of principles was The "Con- 
the plan for carrying them into effect. In general this was sodaUon." ^" 
the old method of boycotting English trade and manufac- 
tures. By the "Continental Association" the delegates bound 
themselves and, so far as possible, their constituents not to 
import or use British goods or other articles on which duties 
had been levied. The slave trade was to be discontinued and, 
unless Parliament came to terms within a year, exports to the 
British Isles and the West Indies were also to be stopped. 
Experience showed the difficulty of enforcing such boycotts, 
and Congress, therefore, recommended an elaborate machin- 
ery of provincial and local committees, chosen by the people, 
to watch over suspicious persons and make life hard for those 
who refused to conform. Out of this network of committees 
there gradually developed something like a revolutionary 
government, often better able to enforce its will than the 
regularly constituted authorities. The idea of a central 
assembly to coordinate all these local agencies was kept 
alive by calling a second Continental Congress to meet in 
May, 1775. Thus the coercive acts, instead of restoring 
law and order in the colonies, produced exactly the opposite 
result and played directly into the hands of the radicals. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Becker, Eve of the American Revolution, 115-220. Channing, General 

references 

United States, III, chs. IV-V. Fisher, Struggle for American In- 



436 



THE EVE OF REVOLUTION. 1766-17 74 



Collected 
sources. 



English 
politics. 



English 
sources. 



The 

American 

opposition. 



American 
sources. 



Western 
problems. 



.dependence, I, chs. IX-XX. Frothingham, R., Rise oj the Repub- 
lic, chs. VI-IX (Frothingham and Bancroft reflect older views). 
Howard, Preliminaries, chs. X-XVI. Lecky, England in the 
Eighteenth Century, III, 344-447 (or his Amerkan Revolution). 
Trevelyan, G. O., American Revolution, I, chs. I-V (liberal Eng- 
lish view). 

Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 61, 64-73. Hart, Con- 
temporaries, II, ch. XXIV, and no. 153. Callender, Selections from 
Economic History of the U. S., 148-159. 

Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, II, ch. I. Ruville, A. von, Pitt, HI, 
chs. IX-XII. Williams, B., Chatham, ch. XXII. Detailed dis- 
cussion in Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics. 

Burke's speech on American Taxation, April, 1774, in Works 
(also in various other texts). Cobbett's Parliamentary History, 
XVII (debates on coercive acts of 1774). George III, Corre- 
spondence with Lord North. Knox, W., Controversy between Great 
Britain and Her Colonies Reviewed (1769). 

Henry, Patrick Henry, I, chs. VI-X. Tyler, Patrick Henry, 
chs. VII- VIII. Hosmer, J. K., S. Adams, 81-289 (extended 
biography by W. V. Wells). Lincoln, C. H., Revolutionary Move- 
ment in Pennsylvania, chs. VIII-X. McCrady, South Carolina, 
171^1776, chs. XXX-XXXIX. Stille, C. J., John Dickinson, 
79-149. Hosmer, J. K., Thomas Hutchinson (representative 
loyalist). Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants and the American Revo- 
lution {Columbia Studies), chs. III-X. 

Dickinson, J., Letters of a Farmer in Writings (Penn, Hist. 
Soc, Memoirs, XIV). Franklin, Writings (Smyth edition), 
V, VI. Hutchinson, T., Massachusetts, III, ch. Ill (loyalist 
view). Jefferson, T., Writings (Ford edition), I (including auto- 
biography). For Continental Congress, see Journals, I (Library 
of Congress edition); and Adams, J., Works, II, 340-402 (auto- 
biography and notes). 

Alvord, Centennial History of Illinois, I, ch. XIV. 



CHAPTER XrX 
REVOLUTION, 1774 TO 1776 

In England a few friends of the colonies, including English 
Chatham, were impressed by the ability and self-control opinion* 
shown in the published statements of the Continental 
Congress. Another group, made up largely of merchants 
and manufacturers, was anxious about the effect of the 
"Association" on business. During the summer there had 
even been some talk of a change in the ministry which 
might bring in a more liberal element and so make possible 
a different American policy, perhaps some "great constitu- 
tional charter to be confirmed by King, Lords, and Com- 
mons." Unfortunately the new parliamentary elections 
strengthened those elements which followed the ministry 
and had little sympathy for the American point of view. 

Not only were the liberals in a minority; they were also Conciliatory 
unable to agree on a constructive policy. The ''Old Whig" S'^^'^^^'^j 
view, best expressed by Burke, was to put Anglo-American Chatham, 
relations back where they were before 1763. This could 
be done by repealing the coercive acts and leaving the 
taxing power with the separate colonial assemblies; also 
there should be as little talk as possible about legal theories 4^" 
of Parliamentary sovereignty. Chatham favored a constitu- 
tional agreement defining both the rights of Parliament and 
those of the colonies. The colonies, he thought, should 
acknowledge their dependence on the "imperial crown of 
Great Britain" and the supreme legislative authority of Par- 
liament. In return for this acknowledgment. Parliament 
should expressly renounce any authority to tax the colonies. 

437 



438 



REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 



New meas- 
ures of 
coercion. 



North's 
"Concilia- 
tory Propo- 
sition." 



Instead of treating tlie Continental Congress as a group of 
rebels, Chatham accepted it as a fair representation of 
American opinion, entitled to join with Parliament as a 
party to this proposed agreement. The American Whigs 
were not quite satisfied with this plan, but they were willing 
to accept it as a basis for discussion. The ministry, however, 
regarded it as impossible and it was rejected in the House 
of Lords by a vote of nearly two to one. 

Among the ministers, even, there were differences of 
opinion. They had to take into account the British trading 
interests which might be injured by a purely repressive 
policy. In London, large meetings were held by merchants 
who had business interests in the continental colonies, and 
petitions were sent to Parliament from the leading com- 
mercial and manufacturing centers asking the government 
to reconsider its American policy. Nevertheless, the King- 
and the factions which supported him were determined not 
to yield. Some merchants also believed that they would 
gain more in the end by the enforcement of parliamentary 
authority than by an immediate reopening of trade through 
concessions which later might be awkward. So the appeals 
of the Continental Congress were rejected and the policy of 
coercion was continued. 

The New England Restraining Act restricted still further 
the trade of that section and votes were taken for increasing 
the military and naval forces in America. The only offset 
to the coercive policy was the ''Conciliatory Proposition" 
of Lord North, offering to exempt from parliamentary taxes 
any colony whose assembly would guarantee a definite 
sum for imperial purposes. Whatever its purpose may have 
been, this proposal proved futile. The Americans and their 
Enghsh sympathizers generally regarded it as a trick to 
divide the colonies; but before the latter had time to act 
on it, war began at Lexington and Concord. 

Though the serious fighting began in Massachusetts, 



REVOLUTIONARY METHODS 439 

similar conditions existed elsewhere. From New Hampshire Enforcing 
to Georgia, the radicals organized committees to enforce "Continental 
the "Continental Association." These committees had no Association." 
legal authority, but they had more real power than many 
of the regular governments. Those who violated the "non- 
importation" and " nonconsumption " agreements were 
punished by social ostracism, by trade boycotts, and by 
physical violence. In order that the colonies might be 
more independent economically, home industries were en- 
couraged and people were urged to produce more wool for 
domestic manufactures. More ominous still was the atten- 
tion given to military preparations. Munitions were col- 
lected, plans were made for a larger production of them, 
and independent military companies were formed. 

Virginia illustrates admirably the way in which revo- Revolution- 
lutionary methods were undermining the regular provin- fn^^j^lnia. ^ 
cial governments. In the summer of 1774 tlie Virginians, 
especially the frontiersmen and others who were interested 
in western lands, were much occupied with Indian afTairs. 
The movement of new settlers into the Ohio valley had 
brought on a new conflict with the Indians, generally known 
as Lord Dunmore's War, which for a time brought governor 
and people together in defense of their common interests. 
But the Indians were soon defeated and the men who fought 
the victorious campaign emerged from the wilderness with 
ideas quite different from those of their governor. Even 
a disagreeable boundary controversy between Pennsylvania 
and Virginia did not prevent the radicals in both colonies 
from working together. By the end of 1774, Dunmore had 
to report that his authority had almost disappeared. The 
courts could not transact business and militia companies 
were taking orders not from him but from revolutionary 
committees. In the following spring, these military prepa- 
rations, in which Washington took an active part, were 
vigorously pushed and Virginia came near having an armed 



440 REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 

encounter between the governor and the colonial volunteers 
similar to that which actually occurred about the same 
time in Massachusetts. 
The loyalists. Meantime, the Whigs were confronted in every colony 
by a more or less influential "loyalist," or Tory, element, 
which felt that the Continental Congress and the various 
revolutionary committees had gone dangerously far. These 
men were not all thick-and-thin defenders of the British 
government. Some of them had not only criticized the 
Stamp Act and other revenue measures but had done what 
they could to secure their repeal. Now, however, it seemed 
to them that Whig measures were leading directly to dis- 
ruption of the empire. All this they dreaded not merely 
because they were loyal to the King and the mother country, 
but because they needed the help of the home government 
to protect them against aggressively democratic neighbors. 
Besides the out-and-out loyalists, there were many others 
who disliked Whig methods and shrank from the idea of 
armed conflict. To a certain extent and in a negative way, 
such men cooperated with the real loyalists; but in general 
they tried to steer a safe middle course. Such people were 
not wilUng to make sacrifices for the loyalist cause and were 
often intimidated by their radical neighbors. 
Social factors The loyalists did not belong to any one class in society, 
party. "^^^ ^ though they were most numerous among the naturally 
conservative people of wealth, social standing, and education. 
In Massachusetts, for instance, the old ofl&ce-holding class, 
and many of the leading merchants, the Anglican clergy, 
and the college graduates were loyalists. In New York 
and Philadelphia, many of the merchants took a similar 
stand. The loyalists counted on the conservatism of the 
old Quaker families and strong resolutions were passed by 
the Quaker meetings against violent resistance to the civil 
authorities. In Virginia, moderates and radicals worked 
togetlier better than in most colonies and thus checked 



LOYALISTS AND WHIGS 44 1 

the development of the loyalist party except among the 
Scotch and other merchants. Farther south, in the 
Carolinas and Georgia, the Tories were numerous and 
active. The loyalists laid much stress on the hardships The loyalist 
resulting from the "Association." Some kinds of legitimate ^'■s"°ient. 
business undoubtedly suffered and poor people complained 
of the high prices which they had to pay because "nonim- 
portation" cut down the available supply of goods. The 
local committees were also accused of showing favoritism, 
making concessions to influential people while others were 
held up more strictly. Much was made of the undoubted 
fact that loyalists were not allowed to write or speak their 
opinions; from their point of view Whig interference with 
personal liberty was more serious than that of the British 
government. 

The net result, then, of the Continental Congress and Transfer 
of the program carried out in accordance with its directions [^ ^^1u- 
by the local committees, was to bring about a clearer align- tionarj'.or- 

, " . ° ganizations. 

ment between radicals and conservatives, — between the 
old provincial governments which rested on royal authority 
and the more or less revolutionary organizations which 
were gradually getting the real power. Evidently this 
state of things could not go on indefinitel3\ The radicals 
could not easily draw back and some of them were now 
ready to secede from the empire. 

For various reasons the crisis was first reached in Massa- The out- 
chusetts, which was most directly affected by the coercive Massachu- 
acts. From the Whig point of view, Parliament itself had ®^"^- 
inaugurated a revolution by arbitrarily destroying the old 
provincial constitution. The opponents of General Gage 
argued with some show of reason, that they, rather than he, 
were standing for the "good old ways." The Massachu- 
setts Whigs also had a group of skillful leaders who knew 
just what they wanted and had developed an unusually 
effective organization. By the beginning of 1775 military 



442 



REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 



Lexington 
and Concord. 



The ques- 
tion of 
cooperation. 



The second 
Continental 
Congress. 



preparations were well advanced on both sides. "Minute- 
men" were drilling and munitions were being gathered; 
but each side preferred to put on the other the responsibility 
for striking the first blow. Gage's government in Boston was 
getting to be little more than a besieged garrison and he 
could hardly afford to let matters drift much longer. So 
it came about that on April ig, 1775, a few British regulars, 
sent to seize military supplies accumulated at Concord by 
the revolutionary government, clashed with a handful of 
militiamen on Lexington Common, marched on to Concord, 
where they met more serious resistance from the "em- 
battled farmers," and finally had to make a humiliating 
retreat back to Boston. 

So far, the conflict was primarily a Massachusetts affair. 
Already, however, there was a general understanding be- 
tween the Massachusetts Whigs and their neighbors in the 
other New England colonies. Within a few weeks of the 
affair at Lexington and Concord, all the colonies of this 
group were represented in the numerous, but poorly organ- 
ized and equipped, army which had assembled at Cambridge, 
only a few miles from Gage's headquarters in Boston. 
This cooperation of the New England colonies was, of 
course, only the first step; the enterprise could not possibly 
succeed without active support from the middle and south- 
ern provinces. Whether that support was to be given was 
the great question to be decided by the Second Continental 
Congress in May, 1775. 

The new Congress, like its predecessor of 1774, included 
men of various opinions, — radical, moderate, and conserv- 
ative. The conservatives were, however, much weaker 
than before and they had no such aggressive leader as 
Joseph Galloway. The radicals were correspondingly 
stronger, but they had to move slowly in order to keep 
in touch with their more cautious associates. Hancock of 
Massachusetts was chosen president, and radicals and 




George Washixgton 



WASHINGTON 443 

moderates agreed that Congress should assume responsibil- 
ity for the army in Cambridge, of which Washington was 
presently made commander in chief. Even cautious people 
lilce Dickinson believed there were good English precedents 
for military resistance to unconstitutional measures. 

The choice of Washington as commander in chief was Washington 
a notable event. He was selected partly because he was a mander in 
Virginian, but also because none of the other Whig leaders <^^^^- 
had any general reputation as a soldier. Even Washington 
had never commanded more than a few hundred men nor 
seen a battle between two disciplined armies. Fortunately 
the technical preparation which he lacked was not indis- 
pensable. There was no battle of the Revolutionary War in 
which either side had more than a few thousand men, and 
the commanders in chief on the other side were second-rate. 
The qualities most needed, Washington had in extraordinary 
measure: capacity for leadership, persistent courage during 
long periods of defeat and general discouragement, sturdy 
common sense, and a personal character which, in spite of 
some jealousy and even disloyalty in Congress and in the 
army, won for him the confidence of the people whom he 
served. 

The war in which Washington now engaged was not The Ameri- 
conceived by him or most of his comrades as a struggle for P^"^ cause 
national independence; it was hardly even a revolt against 
the King, but rather armed resistance to the group of minis- 
ters then advising the King and guiding Parliament. Dur- 
ing the early months of the war, Washington referred to 
the British army as the "ministerial troops" and Americans 
were still appealing from the King "badly advised" to the 
King "better advised." Yet every month made more 
difficult this attempt to reconcile a theoretical loyalty to 
the King with the actual fact of armed resistance to his 
agents in America. 

The British government was now preparing for a real 



1775. 



444 REVOLUTION, 1 774-1 776 

British war. This took time, however, and for about a year no im- 

preparations. pQj-^^nt offensive movement was undertaken by the British. 
Great Britain had no large standmg army and even in the 
Seven Years' War had never called more than a small fraction 
of her able-bodied men into military service; she depended 
rather on her navy and the wealth which enabled her to 
subsidize her European allies. Even now, in a conflict with 
his own subjects, the head of a great world power felt obhged 
to make up for the lack of English recruits by buying soldiers 
from tlie Landgrave of Hesse and other minor German 
princes. The British government also counted heavily on 
the American loyalists, and to a less extent on Indian 
allies, who had been attached to the British cause by 
skillful agents like the Johnson family in New York, and 
Stuart, tlie superintendent of Indian affairs in the South. 
Both the loyalists and the Indians were disappomting. 
Though the loyalists were numerous, the superior aggressive- 
ness and organizing ability of the Whig element prevented 
them from getting effectively together. The Indians could 
do a good deal of damage by raiding frontier settlements, 
but could not be relied on in a complicated campaign. 
Bunker Hill The military history of the year which began with Wash- 

of Boston. ington's appointment may be briefly told. First came the 
battle of Bunker Hill, fought before Washington's arrival 
by New England volunteers, who had tried to make the 
British position in Boston untenable by fortifying certain 
heights in the neighboring village of Charlestown. In this 
battle the colonials twice repulsed tlie advancing British 
under General Howe, but were defeated in the third attack, 
after their ammunition was exhausted. They had, however, 
inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and shown that they 
could use both spade and rifle to good advantage. During 
the next few months there was not much change in the 
situation. The British and their lo3'alist supporters were 
cooped up in Boston while the revolutionary party was 



WASHINGTON'S ARMY 445 

terrorizing the Tories outside of the British lines and per- 
fecting its organization. In the autumn Gage gave up his 
unpleasant task and sailed home. A few months later, 
Washington's fortification of Dorchester Heights made 
Howe's position so precarious that he decided to leave Evacuation 
Boston, taking with him more than a thousand loyalists. °^ ^^oston. 
Within a year after Gage's unlucky expedition to Concord, 
royal authority had practically disappeared in New Eng- 
land. 

American success up to this point v/as due largely to Washing- 
British incompetence rather than to American efficiency. °" ^ ^'™^* 
To a man of soldierly instincts and training, the army at 
Cambridge was discouraging. During the summer of 1775 
several thousand New England volunteers came in; tliere 
were also some riflemen recruited from the frontier districts 
of Pennsylvania and the South, of whom the best known 
were the Virginians under the capable Daniel Morgan. 
New England ideas about discipline were free and easy, and 
mistaken notions of democracy prevented ofiicers from get- 
ting proper respect from their men. Stern discipline was 
sometimes necessary under these circumstances and Wash- 
ington was not afraid to apply it, to officers as v/ell as men. 
Munitions and other equipment were also quite insufficient. 
Much of Washington's trouble came from the fact that the Congress and 
civilian chiefs of the insurgent government in Philadelphia ^ ^ ^'^™^' 
also had pioneer work to do in organizing a central war office. 
There were good men engaged on this task — John Adams 
of Massachusetts, Sherman of Connecticut, Wilson of Penn- 
sylvania, and Rutledge of South Carolina; but they were 
quite inexperienced in such matters. AU things considered, 
they probably did as well as could reasonably be expected. 

With this hastily improvised organization. Congress Other 
undertook at the end of 1775 a new and difficult offensive colonies. 
movement against the British forces in Canada. So far the 
revolutionary spirit had been almost wholly limited to the 



446 



REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 



Canada and 
the Revolu- 
tion. 



The 

Canadian 
campaign of 
1775-1776. 



"old thirteen" colonies. The British West Indies grumbled 
somewhat about parliamentary taxation; but for them 
resistance to British sea power was almost inconceivable. 
In the new provinces of East and West Florida, British and 
colonial land speculators were already at work; but English 
settlers were few and the scattered Spanish and French 
population was not good material for a revolutionary party. 
In the north, Nova Scotia was equally unpromising. The 
French peasantry took little interest in poHtics and the small 
English population was out of touch witli movements to 
the southward. About Canada, however, the Whigs were 
for a time more hopeful. This newly conquered province 
could hardly be expected to show any real loyalty to the 
British Crown, or toward the English ruling class, from whom 
they differed in nationality, language, and religion. On 
the other hand, these differences separated the Canadians 
even more from the American Whigs than from the imperial 
government. Under the Quebec Act the rights of their 
church were now fully recognized and their old civil law 
reestablished; but the Continental Congress of 1774 had 
denounced these very concessions and had used the prevailing 
anti-Catholic feeling of the older colonies as "campaign 
material" against the British. In undertaking after this 
to enlist the Canadians as allies, on issues which meant 
little to them, the Whigs were playing a difficult game. 
Yet the chance seemed to be worth trying and so the Con- 
gress of 1775 published an appeal to the Canadian people. 
The delegates also overcame their Protestant prejudices 
sufficiently to send the Catholic, John Carroll, from Mary- 
land, along with Franklin to plead the Whig cause in 
Canada. This diplomatic move was to be supported by a 
military expedition. 

In May, 1775, the frontiersmen of Vermont, led by the 
strenuous Ethan Allen, gained an important advantage by 
seizing Ticonderoga and Crown Point, which controlled an 



CANADA AND THE CAROLINAS 447 

important section of the historic waterway between the 
Hudson and the St. Lawrence. Soon afterwards Congress 
determined to attempt tlie invasion of Canada, and in the 
autumn of 1775 tvro cooperating expeditions were on their 
way. One, under the young Irish officer, Richard Mont- 
gomery, followed the Lake Champlaui route and m November 
captured Montreal. The other, commanded by Benedict 
Arnold, an energetic officer from Connecticut, made a he- 
roic winter march through the wilds of Maine. The two 
forces united before Quebec; but on the last day of the old 
year the American assault was beaten back and Montgomery 
was killed. The siege continued for several months and 
Congress sent reenforcements; but the British were ably 
led by Sir Guy Carleton and the French showed little 
interest. By the summer of 1776 the Americans had fallen 
back to Crown Point. 

Though the immediate object of the Quebec expedition The British 
was not realized, it did some good by weakening the British ^f ^"^^75 
offensive. Three months passed after the occupation of delayed. 
Boston before Howe was ready to begin his attack on New 
York. There were attacks on seaboard towns lilce Falmouth 
in Maine and Norfolk in Virginia, but they accomplished 
little; their chief result was to exasperate the Americans 
and help the radical agitation for independence. The only 
important offensive movement of the British before the 
summer of 1776 was the southern campaign, which aimed 
at tlie capture of Charleston, and a loyalist uprising to 
detach the southern colonies from the Continental Congress. 
This campaign failed, partly because the up-country loyal- 
ists of the Carolinas were poorly organized and did not 
come out in sufficient numbers. Before they were ready 
to cooperate with the British landing force, they were over- 
whelmed by the Whigs at Moores Creek Bridge, North 
Carolina. In spite of this disappointment, the British 
commander, General Clinton, with the cooperation of the 



448 



REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 



Defense of 
Charleston. 



The drift 
toward in- 
dependence. 



Breakdown 
of the 
provincial 
governments. 



fleet, attacked Charleston in June, 1776; but the South 
Carolinians, led by President Rutledge and William Moultrie, 
made a brave defense and Charleston was saved. After 
fourteen months of fighting the British had no solid foot- 
hold in any of the thirteen colonies. 

As the summer came on, it was evident that the whole 
character of the conflict had changed. In June, 1775, the 
colonists still professed to be merely British subjects de- 
fending themselves against unconstitutional measures. How- 
ever reasonable that theory may have been in the beginning, 
it was fast becoming untenable. Americans could not go 
on indefinitely professing loyalty to a King whose fleets 
were attacking their coasts and whose armies they were 
doing their best to destroy. In other ways, too, the struggle 
had ceased to be a mere family quarrel. George III was 
calling in German mercenaries and the colonists were begin- 
ning to thmk seriously of foreign help. Already the French 
had sent agents to study the situation, and in November, 
1775, the Continental Congress appointed a committee to 
correspond " with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and 
other parts of the world." After some violent protests 
against negotiations with foreign powers, Congress finally, 
in March, 1776, appointed Silas Deane as its agent in Paris. 
If the colonists were still British subjects, this was nothing 
less than treason. 

Another factor which helped the advocates of inde- 
pendence was the gradual disappearance of the old gov- 
ernments. In the early months of 1776, a few royal gov- 
ernors were still trying to preserve some shreds of authority. 
Governor Tryon of New York and Lord Dunmore of 
Virginia took refuge on British vessels, from which they 
tried to organize the loyalists against the revolutionary 
forces. Generally speaking, however, the royal and pro- 
prietary governments had given way to provincial con- 
gresses and committees. These revolutionary organizations 



REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENTS 449 

were well enough for temporary purposes but they could 
not meet the permanent needs of the community. They 
had been chosen in irregular ways and their powers were 
not clearly defined; in short, they had no legal status. 
The old constitutions of the colonies rested largely on royal 
charters or commissions, and officeholders had to swear 
allegiance to the King. These foundations were crumbling 
and a new public law would have to be developed, or the 
country would drift toward anarchy. Loyalists regarded 
these destructive tendencies as the natural result of Whig 
teaching; even thoroughgoing Wliigs were alarmed by the 
growing spirit of lawlessness. 

The problem of reconstruction was comparatively simple The prob- 
in Connecticut and Rhode Island, because their govern- construction, 
ments, though based on royal charters, consisted wholly of 
officials chosen directly or indirectly by the people. Even 
Massachusetts kept up as much of its old government as 
it could, after eliminating the royal governor. In the ordi- 
nary royal and proprietary governments no such arrange- 
ment was practicable. So, from one province after another, 
came appeals to Congress for advice. In November, Con- 
gress answered an inquiry from New Hampshire by advising 
the formation of a temporary government based on the 
authority of the people. Similar advice was given to South 
Carolina, which adopted a temporary constitution early in 
1776. All these developments made compromise more 
difficult and forced Americans to choose squarely between 
going back to the old loyalty or pressing resolutely forward 
toward independence. 

During the last months of 1775, radicals like John Adams Failure 
and Richard Henry Lee grew more and more impatient condfiation 
with halfway measures, and Washington's influence was policy, 
presently felt in the same direction. Between Virginia and 
New England, however, — in New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, and Maryland, — the loyalists were powerful, 



45° REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 

as they were also in the Carolinas and Georgia. Franklin, 
back at home once more, was now definitely on the 
radical side; but the moderate Whigs, led by John Jay of 
New York, James Wilson and John Dickinson of Pennsyl- 
vania, and the Rutledges of South Carolina, still hoped 
against hope for reconciliation. Unfortunately for them, 
the conciliatory documents which Congress adopted under 
their influence in the summer of 1775 were not well received 
in England. New legislation cut off intercourse with the 
rebellious colonies and negotiations for German mercenaries 
were continued. 
Public In these trying months, when perhaps half of the Ameri- 

Paine's' ^an people were wavering between the hope of reconciliation 

Common ^^d the radical proposal of absolute independence, a young 
man named Thomas Paine published a small pamphlet 
entitled Common Sense. Paine, who had lived in America 
only a few months, was not a great thinker; but he could 
write vigorously and knew how to influence the average 
man. He now argued that the time had come for breaking 
away from old traditions; "a new method of thinking 
hath arisen." Pie answered the appeal for loyalty to the 
mother country by saying that America was the child not 
of England only but of Europe. There was "somethmg 
absurd," he said, "in supposing a continent to be perpetually 
governed by an island." There was some language in the 
pamphlet which, as John Adams said, was "suitable for an 
emigrant from Newgate"; as, for instance, his reference to 
George III as the "royal Brute" of England. With all its 
coarseness and declamation. Common Sense was a great 
book. It did popularize a new and less provincial "method 
of thinking. " In a remarkable way, Paine touched the imagi- 
nation of Americans with his vision of a new, independent, 
and democratic nationality. Many of them disapproved 
of his ultraradical philosophy; but there was a driving 
force in it which no one was more ready to recognize than 



COMMERCE AND WAR 45 1 

the hard-headed, somewhat aristocratic, gentleman who 
commanded the Continental army. 

Early in 1776, the moderate Whigs were forced into a Congress 
series of measures which, taken together, made independence to*^fo^re?gii ^ 
almost inevitable. Especially important was the decision shipping, 
to break away from the old commercial system which 
excluded foreign ships from American ports. The Associ- 
ation of 1774, the retaliatory measures of Parliament, and 
the outbreak of hostilities made impossible most of tlie old 
trade within the empire, though some exceptions were made 
on both sides, as when Congress permitted South Carolina 
to export rice and the British allowed trade with certain 
colonies in the hope of winning them over. In short, the 
old system had broken down; but there was no clean-cut 
uniform policy to put in its place, and the result was much 
misunderstanding and friction among the colonies. Es- 
pecially urgent just then was the need of importing military 
supplies from continental Europe; in spite of strenuous 
efforts to stimulate American production, it was impossible 
to get on without foreign help, not only in selling supplies 
but in transporting them across the ocean. So after long 
debates and strenuous opposition from conservative members, 
Congress voted in April, 1776, a kind of commercial decla- 
ration of independence. In flat defiance of the Navigation 
Acts, American ports, hitherto open only to British and 
colonial vessels, were thrown open to the trade of all nations 
except Great Britain. 

Meantime, Congress was also discussing the difficult Disarming 
problem of the loyalists, who still upheld the old government loyalists, 
and even though temporarily overawed were likely at any 
time to cooperate actively with the British army. The 
Whig party everywhere acted on the theory that, for the 
time being at any rate, a new authority had been created 
and intrusted to the revolutionary government, Continental, 
provincial, and local. Those who accepted this new order 



452 



REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 



Resolution 
of Maj', 
1776. 



Victory 
of the 
radicals. 



were good citizens; all others were to be regarded as 
enemies. As the war went on it became increasingly neces- 
sary to draw this clean-cut line between enemies and friends; 
but to a large extent the problem was dealt with independ- 
ently by the revolutionary organization in each province. 
Everywhere it became harder for men to be neutral, and 
persons suspected of having Tory sympathies were perse- 
cuted, required to take various tests, and often driven into 
exile. Effective as this local action often was, it seemed 
desirable that Congress should adopt a general policy. 
Accordingly, in the spring and winter of 1776, Congress 
passed resolutions urging the government of each colony to 
disarm all persons who were "notoriously disaffected" or 
who refused to help in defending the country against the 
British forces. 

This virtual assertion of a new allegiance replacing the 
old one led naturally to another forward step which made 
the formal declaration of independence almost superfluous. 
By resolution of May 10, adopted on the initiative of John 
Adams, Congress recommended all the colonies to form such 
governments "as shall, in the opinion of the representatives 
of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of 
their constituents in particular and America in general." 
Especially significant was the preamble, published with the 
resolution though adopted five days later. The taking of 
an oath to support government under the Crown was de- 
clared to be contrary to reason and conscience; and all 
authority under the Crown was held to be "totally sup- 
pressed." Governmental powers should now be exercised 
"under the authority of the people of the colonies, for the 
preservation of internal peace, virtue, and good order." 
This was not done v/ithout a vigorous protest. Wilson of 
Pennsylvania admitted the need of new organizations to 
preserve order but feared the resolution would make trouble 
in his own colony, where tlie regular provincial assembly 



MOVING TOWARD INDEPENDENCE 453 

was having a hard struggle with radical elements in Phila- 
delphia, as well as in the up-country districts. If the pre- 
amble were adopted, Pennsylvania might fall into a state 
of confusion. Why such haste? Wilson asked. "Before 
we are prepared to build the new house, why should we pull 
down the old one?" But Adams and his supporters were 
determined and this time they had the votes. 

This same month of May saw the Virginians hard at Action of 
work putting the new theory into practice. The blundering ^'^^ima.. 
violence of Governor Dunmore, his attempts to excite a 
slave insurrection, and the intrigues of some of his associates 
had discredited the loyalists and consolidated sentiment in 
favor of decisive measures. The provincial convention now 
committed itself to the principle of independence and began 
forming a state constitution. A resolution was also adopted 
instructing the Virginia delegates in Congress to move for 
independence, confederation, and foreign alliances. Such 
a motion was accordingly made on June 7, by Richard 
Henry Lee, appropriately seconded by John Adams. 

Virginia and Massachusetts were now standing together The issue 
for independence; but Congress still hesitated. Men like p°^'^p°'^^ • 
Jay and Duane in New York, or Dickinson and Wilson in 
Pennsylvania, were placed between two fires. As Whigs 
they had gone too far for their conservative neighbors; but 
they were alarmed by the radical democratic forces which 
the revolution had developed. So they pleaded for delay, 
and the radicals waited in the hope of getting united action 
later. On June 10, the vote on independence was postponed 
for three weeks to give the delegates another opportunity 
to get the opinions of their constituents. Meantime, the 
advocates of independence, anxious to lose as little time as 
possible, secured tlie appointment of three important com- 
mittees. The committee to draft a declaration of inde- Committees 
pendence included four radicals, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, penJTence, 
and Sherman, with one moderate, Livingston of New York. ^^^- 



454 



REVOLUTION, 17 74-1 7 76 



The vote 
for inde- 
pendence. 



The two other committees were to consider confederation 
and foreign alliances, and on these the moderates were 
liberally recognized. Dickinson was a member of both and 
chairman of the former; his equally cautious colleague, 
Robert Morris, served on the committee to consider 
foreign alliances. 

During the next three weeks the radicals were hard at 
work bringing the doubtful colonies into line. In the 
middle group the conventions of New Jersey and Maryland 
voted for independence. In Pennsylvania the assembly 
hesitated, but a conference of revolutionary committees 
declared for independence. The South Carolina delegates 
found it hard to reach a decision, because their instructions 
were indefinite and they were too far away to keep in touch 
with their constituents. When, on July i, the debate was 
resumed in Congress tliere was a clear majority for inde- 
pendence; but the conservatives were still asking for more 
time. Dickinson argued that the colonies should form an 
effective federal union before committing themselves to 
permanent separation from the empire. He was vigorously 
answered by John Adams, and on the same day a vote was 
taken in committee of the whole, showing nine colonies 
for independence — the four New England colonies, New 
Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia; of 
the remaining four, the New York delegates refused to vote 
at all and Delaware's vote was divided, while Pennsylvania 
and South Carolina voted against independence. The 
formal vote was then postponed until the next day, July 2, 
and a great effort was made to secure unanimous 
action. 

Before the vote was taken, the arrival of an absent 
member gave the radicals a majority from Delaware, and 
the South Carolinians decided to take the chance of voting 
for independence and getting the approval of their constitu- 
ents later. The Pennsylvania delegation was still divided; 



INDEPENDENCE DECLARED 455 

but its members were under heavy pressure from impatient 
radicals in their own colony, and when the final vote was 
taken only two voted definitely against independence. Two 
others, Dickinson and Morris, stayed away, and Wilson 
went with the majority. So on July 2 the great decision 
was made with twelve colonies voting aye. New York still 
refrained from voting, but a week later the provincial con- 
vention gave its formal assent. The same day, the com- The Decla- 
mittee appointed to draft a declaration made its report. This dependence" 
draft was almost wholly the work of the chairman, Thomas 
Jefferson, and in some passages the document reflected the 
individuality of the writer. There were, for instance, extreme 
views about colonial independence of Parliament which were 
certainly not shared by all his colleagues. There was also a 
passage denouncing the King for his part in the introduction 
of slavery into the colonies, which offended some of the 
delegates who were interested in the slave trade, and was 
accordingly struck out. Congress made other minor changes 
and then formally adopted tlie text of the Declaration on 
July 4. Some time afterwards. Congress voted that the 
Declaration should be signed by all the members, and signa- 
tures were accordingly attached at different dates during 
the next few months. 
/ The political theory of tlie Declaration was not new. Political 
John Adams, who, with all his great quahties, was not always of 'the°^ ^ 
magnanimous, complained of its lack of originality; but i^eclaration. 
in such a document originality was not desirable. Wliat 
the occasion required, and what Jefferson actually did, for 
the most part, was to put together, in effective literary form, 
ideas and language familiar to all who had followed the 
discussions of the past fifteen years: All men are created 
equal; being naturally free, they have established govern- 
ments for the purpose of securing their inalienable rights; 
all just governments rest on the consent of the governed and 
can be dissolved when they fail to serve the fundamental 



456 



REVOLUTION, 1774-1776 



The list of 
grievances. 



Tlie real 
cause of the 
Revolution. 



An American 
civil war. 



purposes for which the compact was made, — all these 
doctrines Americans had learned from John Locke, Algernon 
Sidney, and other seventeenth-century English writers. 
Locke had used them to defend the English Revolution of 
1688, which established the sovereignty of Parliament as 
against the claims of the Stuart kings; but now they were 
used against Parliament itseK. 

The Declaration of 1776 resembled the Whig documents 
of 1765 and 1774 in denouncing acts of Parliament which 
were held to be unconstitutional, especially those imposing 
taxes and the Coercive Acts of 1774. Unlike the older 
statements, however, the Declaration of Independence 
directed its main attack agamst the King himself. Even 
acts of Parliament were treated as the result of a conspiracy 
for which George III was held largely responsible. Striking 
also is the long list of grievances, which included not merely 
those of recent years but reached back to the old colonial 
system. More fundamental, however, to an understanding 
of the American Revolution than any mere list of grievances, 
new or old, was the inevitable difficulty of reconciling im- 
perial authority exercised across three thousand miles of 
ocean, with traditional English ideals of self-government, 
developed and made more aggressive by the stimulating 
atmosphere of the American frontier. 

Finally, it must be remembered that, though the Decla- 
ration was officially described as "unanimous," it did not 
express the unanimous opinion of the American people, 
even after its tardy ratification by New York. In New 
England and Virginia there was a decided preponderance of 
opinion in its favor; but elsewhere the opposing forces were 
strong and many people asked only to be let alone. So 
the great war for independence was not simply a conflict 
between the imperial government and a group of revolting 
colonies, but almost as truly a civil war between two Ameri- 
can parties, one standing for an old allegiance and an old 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 457 

patriotism, the other looking forward hopefully to the 
establishment of a new order, y 

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Becker, Eve of the American Revolution, 220-256. Channing, General 
United States, III, chs. VI-VII. Fisher, Struggle for American references. 
Independence, chs. XXI-XLI. Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, 
chs. X-XI. Howard, Preliminaries, chs. XVII, XVIII; with Van 
Tyne, C. H., American Revolution, chs. II-VI. Lecky, England 
in the Eighteenth Century, III, 456-499. Trevelyan, G. O., 
American Revolution, I, chs. VII-XI; II, chs. XII-XVI. Winsor, 
America, VI, chs. II, III. Bancroft, United States, IV (author's 
last revision). 

Macdonald, Select Charters, nos. 74-80. Hart, Contemporaries, Collected 

II, nos. 154-161, 184-188 (illustrating pubHc opinion). Very ex- s°"''c^s- 
tensive collections, worth sampling even by the general reader, 

are Force, P., American Archives, and Moore, F., Diary of the 
American Revolution (newspaper material). 

Biographies of J. Adams by J. T. Morse and M. Chamber- American 
lain; Washington, by H. C. Lodge and W. C. Ford; Henry, by Iff,^'^"' 
Henry and Tyler; Dickinson, by C. J. Stille. 

Adams, J., Autobiography, diary, etc., in Works, II, 405-517, writings 

III, 3-59 (debates on independence, 44-59). Franklin, B., Writings °^ ^^^s 
(VI in Smyth edition). F:iine, T., Common Sense in Works (Con- 

way edition), I. Washington, Writings (Ford edition), II. 

Tyler, M. C, The Loyalists (Am. Hist. Review, I, 24-45); more Loyalist 
fully in his Literary History of the American Revolution, II. Van ^'^^^nts. 
Tyne, C. H., Loyalists in the American Revolution, chs. I-V. 
Schlesinger, Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, chs. 
XI-XV. Baldwin, E. H., Joseph Galloway (Penn. Mag. of Hist, 
and Biog., XXVI, nos. 2-4). Hosmer, Thomas Hutchinson. 

T. Hutchinson, Diary and Letters, I. Eddis, W., Letters from Loyalist 
America. Whig-Tory debate in J. Adams and [D. Leonard], ^"tings. 
Novanglus and Massachutlendis. Summaries in Tyler, Literary 
History of the American Revolution. 

Becker, Political Parties in the Proviiice of New York. Ecken- Local 
rode, H. J., Revolution in Virginia, chs. I-V. Lincoln, Revolu- conditions. 



458 REVOLUTION, 1 774-1776 

tionary Movement in Pennsylvania, chs. XI-XIII. McCrady, 
South Carolina, 171Q-1776, chs. XXXIX-XLI; and his South 
Carolina in the Revolution, chs. I- VIII. Sharpless, Quaker Govern- 
ment, II, ch. V. 
Declaration Merriam, C. E., American Political Theories., ch. II. Dunning, 

pendence. W. A., Political Theory, Luther to Montesquieu, ch. X (Locke). 
Sources Locke J., Two Treatises of Civil Government. Je&evson, Writings 

(Ford edition), II, 42-58. American History Leaflets, no. 11. 
Fuller discussion in G. H. Hazelton, Declaration of Independence. 



CHAPTER XX 
THE OPPOSING FORCES 

While Congress was debating the subject of independ- Making the 
ence, the first installment of Howe's army was arriving in Declaration 
New York harbor, and on the day after the decisive vote was 
taken, British troops landed on Staten Island. The Whig 
section of the American people, speaking through their 
delegates in Congress assembled, had declared tliat "these 
united colonies are and of right ought to be free and inde- 
pendent states." Now the hard practical question was 
whether they could make that declaration good against 
Great Britain and their own conservative neighbors. 

To many a hard-headed American who had got along British 
comfortably under British sovereignty, this attempt to 
break up the greatest empire of modern times seemed utterly 
reckless. The British advantage in population, perhaps 
about three to one if Ireland is left out of the account, was not 
so serious, considering the distance at which British opera- 
tions had to be carried on. More important was the dis- 
parity in wealth. America was rich in unused and largely un- 
known natural resources; but it was still largely dependent 
on European capital, which so far had come almost entirely 
from England, and it was especially lacking in facilities 
for the manufacture of military supplies. England, on the 
contrary, though much smaller than France in population, 
was the strongest commercial nation in the world. 

For military campaigns carried on across three thousand Naval and 
miles of ocean and along a great stretch of coast line, naval ^" °'^^'^^' 
power was vital, and here again the British position seemed 

459 



460 THE OPPOSING FORCES 

unusually strong. The Seven Years' War had shown the 
superiority of England's navy, even to a combination of 
her two most formidable rivals, France and Spain. In 
land forces England was as usual much weaker, but it was 
not unreasonable to suppose that even a small disciplined 
army, with officers and men like those who fought under 
Amherst and Wolfe in Canada, could defeat the inexperi- 
enced commanders and hastily improvised armies of the 
American rebels. Besides, British money could be used 
to pay for foreign soldiers, as it had been in the last war 
with France and was to be again in the Napoleonic Wars. 
The American loyalists could also be used; though dis- 
appointing in some respects, they probably furnished some- 
thing like 50,000 soldiers to the British army, and they were 
active in other ways, open or secret, which were scarcely 
less dangerous to the American cause. 

A most serious handicap on the American side was the 
lack of an adequate organization to use such resources as 
were available for the common cause. At the head of the 
revolutionary movement was the Continental Congress, a 
convention of party leaders suddenly called on to per- 
form some of the most important and difficult functions of 
government; to maintain an army and a navy, to initiate 
diplomatic intercourse with foreign governments, and to 
find the money necessary for these expensive operations. 
The American leaders were like manufacturers trying to 
turn out finished products while the factory was still being 
built and the machinery still in process of installation. 
That was an enormous handicap which can hardly be over- 
emphasized in trying to form a fair judgment of the revo- 
lutionary leaders. This disadvantage continued throughout 
the war, which was nearly over before the states could be 
persuaded to confer formally upon Congress even the limited 
authority allowed by the Articles of Confederation. 

In certain great crises Congress acted vigorously as a 



CONGRESS AND THE STATES 461 

de facto government, in something like a national character, The Con- 
as may be seen in the extraordinary powers given to Wash- congress, 
ington in December, 1776, and in the French alliance of 
1778; but generally the local poHticians regarded Congress 
merely as a cooperative agency for thirteen sovereign states, 
with no claim on the direct allegiance of any citizen. In 
that spirit a New Jersey politician complained of Washington 
for trying to distinguish between friends and enemies by 
demanding an oath of allegiance to the United States. In 
this matter of organization, the seceding Americans of 1776 
were very different from the southern secessionists of 1861. 
Wlien the Civil War began, the South had a federal gov- 
ernment with a definite constitution, a recognized legis- 
lature, a president with real power, and responsible heads 
of several executive departments. The leaders of the Ameri- 
can Revolution had no such advantages at any time during 
the eight years between the outbreak at Lexington and the 
peace treaty of 1783. 

The troubles of Congress were not due wholly to the Congres- 
grudging attitude of the states. Few of its members had methods, 
ever held any important executive office, and there were 
important principles of governmental efficiency which they 
had to learn by slow and painful experience. They did not 
realize, for example, the advantage of concentrating respon- 
sibility. On the contrary, their colonial experience had 
developed extreme jealousy of one-man power. So Congress 
tried to handle an impossible amount of detail in general 
meeting. When they could not do that, they organized 
numerous committees for administrative as well as legis- 
lative work. It was not until June, 1776, after nearly a year The War 
of fighting, that Congress organized a War Office, in the 
charge of a board of which John Adams was chairman. 
Able men served on this committee, but most of them be- 
longed also to many other committees, some of which were 
scarcely less important. The wonder is not that men so 



Office. 



462 



THE OPPOSING FORCES 



Committees 
on finance 
and foreign 
affaits. 



The state 
governments. 



heavily loaded with unfamiliar duties should often have 
blundered, but rather that they accomplished as much as 
they did. In 1777 Congress appointed a new Board of War, 
with General Gates, then very popular on account of his 
victory at Saratoga, as one of its members; but this also 
proved disappointing. Not until 1781, when the war was 
nearly over, did Congress see the necessity of appointing a 
single executive head for this department. Other important 
departments were similarly managed by committees without 
sufficient power or responsibility, though they also were 
served by some able men. In finance the chief figure was 
Robert Morris, perhaps the ablest business man of his day. 
With great energy and public spirit, he gave to Congress at 
a critical time the advantage of his own prestige. When 
in 1 781 Congress finally decided on a single head for this 
department, Morris was naturally chosen. Of those best 
qualified for handling foreign relations, several were naturally 
drafted for service abroad, — Franklin, in 1776, and later 
John Adams and John Jay. The first Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, also appointed in 1781, was Robert R. Liv- 
ingston of New York, better known now for his part, thirty 
years later, in the Louisiana purchase. 

Poor organization and inefficiency were conspicuous not 
only in the federal government but also in the states, most 
of which had to go through the process of transformation 
from revolutionary conventions and committees to orderly 
constitutional governments. Only Connecticut and Rhode 
Island, with their exceptionally liberal charters, could con- 
tinue the old machinery without material change. Massa- 
chusetts tried to keep up some features of its charter 
government without a royal governor; but elsewhere new 
governments had to be built up almost from the ground. 
Virginia framed a permanent constitution in 1776, but other 
colonies were less fortunate; the Massachusetts constitution 
was not adopted until 1780. Meanwhile, the legal authority of 



THE STATE GOVERNMENTS 463 

these new organizations was disputed by the large part of 
the population which still professed allegiance to the King. 
Much of the ordinary business of government, including 
the administration of justice, was performed with great 
difficulty and sometimes suspended altogether. 

The character of the new constitutions also made trouble. New consti- 
The same distrust of executive authority which weakened weak^ 
the federal government showed itself in the state govern- executives, 
ments also. So the early state constitutions weakened the 
executive and made it subordinate to the legislature. The 
Virginians, for example, had been accustomed to a strong 
royal governor, appointed for an indefinite term, with a 
veto on colonial laws and a liberal appointing power; but 
now they went to the opposite extreme. The governor 
became a mere creature of the legislature, chosen by it for 
one year only, with no right of veto and little authority of 
any sort. Pennsylvania preferred to have no governor at 
all and put the executive power in the hands of a council. 
As the war went on, some people realized that this weakening 
of the executive was dangerous; and under the leadership 
of John Adams, the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 
made the governor more independent of the legislature. 
Quite aside from any mistakes in the constitutions, both 
state and federal governments suffered from that lessening 
of respect for constituted authority which naturally results 
from a great poHtical upheaval. The lawless element did 
hot object to this; but responsible leaders had unpleasant 
visions of the country drifting into a state of anarchy. 
No one suffered more from these conditions than the Conti- 
nental army, and especially its great commander, who saw 
his followers exposed to unnecessary hardships, and their 
cause endangered, by weak administration. 

Nowhere was governmental weakness more apparent Economic 
than in dealing with economic problems. War is a great ^^'^ ^™^" 
financial enterprise, requiring not only brave and disciplined 



464 THE OPPOSING FORCES 

soldiers led by trained officers, but a large number of strictly 
business operations. Food, clothing, and munitions must 
be bought and distributed; means of transportation must 
be provided by land and water; officers and men must be 
regularly paid. Congress had to meet these needs with no 
effective means of raising money except loans or requisitions. 
The states, which alone possessed the taxing power, were 
afraid to use it vigorously, partly because such action was 
bound to be unpopular. Whatever justification there may 
have been for this poHcy, it is certain that the Americans 
of 1776 did not throw their economic resources into the 
struggle to any such extent as, for mstance, the Southern 
Confederates of 186 1, or the belligerent nations in the recent 
World War. As Washington said, the country lacked not 
so much resources as the means of drawing them out. Mean- 
time, the army complained bitterly of the civilians who 
clung to tlieir money when the soldiers were giving up 
their lives. 
Paper One way of keeping down taxes to which most of the 

'^^^^y- colonies were accustomed before the Revolution, was the 

free use of paper money. This practice had been checked 
by the British government; but with this check removed, 
Congress and the state legislatures vied with each other in 
reckless issues of currency, which naturally sank lower and 
lower in value, until the Continental money was worth only 
Loans. a small fraction of its face value. The issue of paper cur- 

rency was, of course, one way of borrowing money. Loans 
were also made in more businesslike ways from the French 
and Spanish governments and from private capitalists in 
those countries. One of John Adams's most important 
services was the securing of loans from the Dutch; in fact, the 
American envoys abroad were largely occupied with efforts of 
this kind, and sometimes the efforts of the United States to 
shift the burden from their own shoulders to those of foreign 
governments were embarrassing to their representatives. 



MILITARY ADMINISTRATION 465 

The financial weakness of the government naturally Manage- 
showed itself in the management of the army. Because of "my.''^ ^^^ 
it Congress could not long support more than a handful of 
real Continental troops, as distinguished from the state 
militia; and the state militia could not be counted on for 
steady service. Now and then, as at Saratoga, the militia 
helped to hem in an enemy force which had got too far 
from its base; but they were likely to weaken in a pitched 
battle or when anything began to go wrong. At certain 
critical moments Washington's main army had less than 
three thousand men, and in the decisive Yorktown campaign 
he had no more than six thousand Continental troops. Since 
the terms of enlistment were short, the army was constantly 
on the verge of disintegration. It was, of course, hard to 
recruit men for an army in which they could not count on 
getting their pay regularly, and officers resented the un- 
necessary hardships imposed on them and their families. 
Even when money was available, it was often ineffectively 
used. The terrible sufferings of the army at Valley Forge, 
in the winter of 1 777-1 778, were due partly to difficulties 
of transportation and the preference of some Pennsylvania 
farmers for British gold over Continental paper; but bad 
management in the offices of the quartermaster-general 
and commissary-general was also largely to blame. In 
1778 General Greene was persuaded to serve as quarter- 
master-general and did excellent work; but in 1780, when 
Congress tried the plan of getting the states to furnish 
specific supplies instead of money, there was another period 
of unsatisfactory administration, for which the soldiers 
had to suffer. Naturally the morale of the army was lowered 
and there were some serious mutinies. 

Problems of the kind described were particularly trying inexperience 
when so many of the officers were comparatively inexpert. offi^ers^"'^^° 
The first four major generals under Washington were 
mediocre or worse, and one of them, Charles Lee, was quite 



466 



THE OPPOSING FORCES 



Foreign 
officers. 



Lafayette. 



erratic and untrustworthy. Of the men who came to the 
front later a few had real military ability. Conspicuous 
among them was Benedict Arnold, who showed great daring 
and initiative in the naval campaigns on Lake Champlain 
in 1776; Daniel Morgan of Virginia, an effective leader of 
the frontiersmen; and finally Nathanael Greene, the ablest 
of them all. With no military experience before the war, 
Greene soon won Washington's confidence, and in the south- 
ern campaigns of 1781 fairly earned a place second only to 
his commander-in-chief among the soldiers of the Revolution. 
Besides the American officers, there were many Euro- 
peans who were willing to practice their profession in America 
for what they considered proper rewards in rank and pay. 
Comparatively few, however, were really useful; even the 
best of them were hampered by imperfect knowledge of 
English and the common prejudice against outsiders. Of 
the foreigners who gave valuable expert service, the first 
place undoubtedly belongs to the German, Steuben, who as 
inspector-general gave America the benefit of his experience 
in the army of Frederick the Great. With him should be 
mentioned Kalb, a German officer in French employ. Among 
those who combined professional skill with real enthusiasm 
for the American cause were two Poles, Kosciusko and 
Pulaski, representatives of a nation whose independence 
was already threatened by unscrupulous neighbors. Both 
were good soldiers and Kosciusko did effective work as an 
engineer. Quite unique among the foreign officers was the 
Marquis de Lafayette. Coming to America as a young 
man just under twenty, he was presently given a commission 
as major general, for which he certainly was not qualified 
at that time. He did some good work later; but his chief 
claim to the gratitude of the American people was his steady 
loyalty to their cause and the influence of his personality 
in establishing a lasting bond of sympathy between his own 
country and the struggling young republic. 



AMERICAN LEADERSHIP 467 

As commander in chief Washington was much harassed Politics and 
by political interference with military appointments. Indi- ^ ^^'^^' 
vidual states tried to push the promotion of local favorites. 
At the beginning, the South complained that New England 
had too many of the higher commissions and there was 
similar feeling in the Middle States. Some New England 
leaders were very critical of Washington and inclined to 
push Gates at his expense. Even in Washington's own 
state, Richard Henry Lee sympathized with the malcontents. 

Sea power played an important part in the winning of Beginnings 
independence, but the direct contributions of the American American 
navy were of minor importance. There was never any "^^^" 
considerable American fleet and the fighting marine consisted 
largely of privateers, who devoted themselves mainly to 
commerce destroying. The profits were so attractive, both 
to officers and men, that they interfered at times with re- 
cruiting for the army and the regular navy. First and last, 
much damage was done to British trade, and there were 
some brilliant exploits, notably those of Paul Jones, best 
remembered for the naval duel between his ship, the Bon- 
homme Richard, and the British frigate Serapis. With a 
worn-out French ship and a heterogeneous crew, of whom 
scarcely more than a third were Americans, Jones won his 
victory by fine seamanship combined with almost reckless 
courage. Incidents like these deserve to be remembered; 
but the navy which counted most heavily in the fight against 
British sea power was that of France. 

In spite of all these evidences of weakness on the American American 
side, the great fact which has to be accounted for is that, Great 
after all, independence was won. What, then, were the l?f^'v[-^_^ 
forces that made victory possible? Clearly one of these 
factors was the personal contribution of certain great leaders. 
Washington doubtless made many mistakes between his 
defeat on Long Island and the final victory at York town; 
but he held Americans together under conditions which 



468 



THE OPPOSING FORCES 



Civilian 
leaders. 



Geographic 
factors. 



would have discouraged a mere military expert. He did 
not win many battles; but, like William of Orange in 
the wars against Louis XIV, he could save the day even 
after some apparently irretrievable disaster. John Adams 
had his foibles, — his vanity, his jealousy of colleagues who 
seemed to have more than their share of recognition, and 
his amateur notions of war, — all these were a part of the 
man; but they were the least important part. It is much 
more worth while to remember his administrative service 
in the Continental Congress, under most discouraging con- 
ditions, and his solid work for America in France and Holland. 
Surely, too, there were few statesmen in any country at 
that time who could compare in diplomatic skill and solid 
good sense with Benjamin Franklin. There were followers, 
too, who should not be forgotten. If then, as always, there 
were profiteers and slackers, there were also the loyal officers 
and men who stood by Washington through the discouraging 
autumn of 1776 and the even more tragic winter at Valley 
Forge. 

With these great human assets, America had also certain 
great natural advantages. Even for a first-class naval power 
like Great Britain, the conduct of military operations on a 
distant continent was a serious matter, so serious that some 
of the King's advisers thought it almost hopeless. Until the 
American army could be finally disposed of, the holding of 
more than a few points on the seaboard would require a 
much larger army than the British government could send. 
Therefore the expeditionar}^ forces were largely dependent 
on supplies from England. Though the little American navy 
played a minor part in the strategy of the war, it could now 
and then cut off British supplies. Distance also compli- 
cated the planning of military operations to an extent that 
can hardly be appreciated in these days of cable and wireless 
communication. Plans made in London, on the basis of 
advice from returned officers or dispatches from generals 




John Adaai? 



EUROPEAN FACTORS 469 

in the field, were several months old before they could be 
effectively acted upon. In 1777 the three men most directly 
responsible for the Saratoga campaign were Lord Germain 
in England, General Burgoyne, who led the invading army 
through the wildernesses between Montreal and Albany, 
and General Howe at New York, who was planning his 
attack on Philadelphia. The failure of these men to act 
effectively together was due partly to personal reasons, 
but partly also to the distances which separated them. 

Finally, it must be remembered that the war was won European 
almost as truly in Europe as in America. Even during the English 
first three years, when the colonies were nominally fighting isolation. 
alone, the British government was handicapped by the 
unfriendly attitude of the continental powers, — France, 
Spain, Holland, and even Prussia, England's recent ally. 
They were all nominally neutral at first; but neutrality was 
often strained to the breaking point m the interest of the 
American rebels. Both France and Spain gave substantial 
assistance through individuals, acting with the connivance 
and often the secret cooperation of their governments. 

England also had diflSculties nearer home, particularly Ireland. 
in Ireland. Some Irishmen served in the British army, but 
of the recent Irish emigrants to America a considerable 
number entered the American service. Franklin, who visited 
Ireland shortly before his return home in 1775, found a 
good deal of sympathy for the American cause, and suggested 
that Irishmen and Americans might combine to secure 
"more equitable treatment," "for them as well as for us." 
Interest in the American cause was especially noted among 
the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of Ulster, so many of whose 
neighbors had already crossed the Atlantic. Disturbance 
of trade resulting from the war increased Irish discon- 
tent, and after France came in, in 1778, the armed Volun- 
teers used their organization to secure concessions from 
the British government, including the removal of old 



47© THE OPPOSING FORCES 

restrictions on the legislative freedom of the Irish parlia- 
ment. 

The attitude of Englishmen toward the war cannot be 
stated in a few simple generalizations. This is partly because 
Parliament did not fairly reflect public opinion. The various 
districts were allotted representation with little reference 
to population, and in many boroughs the handful of voters 
could easily be managed by local magnates or by court poli- 
ticians who could distribute ofl5ces, pensions, and secret- 
service money. This was an old game which the Whig 
politicians had played with great success; but now the King 
was using the same methods to promote his policies. The 
King also got fairly steady support from the Scotch members, 
who had been chosen under a system even more unrepresent- 
ative than that of England. The country gentry who came 
up from the comparatively honest county constituencies 
also at first generally supported the government. Even the 
merchants, though reluctant to disturb friendly and profitable 
business relations with the colonies, were offended by such 
disregard of property rights as that shown in the Boston 
Tea Party and were encouraged for a time by a new develop- 
ment of trade nearer home. In almost every class, there 
were honest and otherwise intelligent men, like Samuel 
Johnson, whose fighting spirit was stirred by deliberate 
defiance of King and Parliament. Johnson's tract against 
the colonies entitled Taxation No Tyranny was done over 
for popular consumption by no less a person than John 
Wesley, the great leader of the Methodist movement. For 
a time, therefore, English support of the war was fairly 
general. 
The English Throughout the war, however, there was a considerable 
element which strongly condemned the whole policy. This 
discontent was perhaps most general among the middle 
classes, and in the manufacturing centers the loss of American 
trade was soon keenly felt. There were mutterings even in 



opposition. 



ENGLISH PUBLIC OPINION 47 1 

the army and navy. Admiral Keppel, one of the great naval 
commanders of the time, refused to take service "in the line 
of America" and General Conway declared that there 
were limits to the principle of military obedience in a civil 
war. Apparently neither of these men lost much popularity 
by statements which would ordinarily be regarded as fla- 
grantly disloyal. Several prominent newspapers in London 
and elsewhere opposed the government's American policy, 
and though they were often extremely violent the government 
rarely ventured to interfere with them. 

The opposition in Parliament was at first ineffective. The oppo- 
Lord Rockingham, the leader of the "Old Whigs," was PaHCiment. 
an honorable man but he lacked energy, and Burke, though 
a great political thinker, was not then an important party 
leader. Pitt made impressive speeches in the House of Lords, ! 

expressing his sympathy with American complaints; but he 
was opposed to American independence and did not get on • 

well with the Rockingham Whigs. Before long, however, 
the opponents of Lord North found a most effective leader 
in Charles James Fox. This young man entered Parliament Fox. 
at about the age of an American college sophomore and 
made his mark before he was twenty-seven. In spite of this 
precocious political activity he was not a model youth. He 
had already wasted a great deal of money in gambling, and 
his political ideals did not, at first, seem more promising 
than his private conduct. Yet he was a man of generous 
spirit and soon developed a keen interest not only in the 
political game but in real public service. During the latter 
years of the war. Fox's vigorous and picturesque personality 
was the rallying point of the steadily growing opposition. 

Nevertheless, Lord North, the Bedford faction, and the Weakness 
King's Friends" had so strong a hold on the political government. 
machine that the parliamentary opposition would have been ^^^Torf ^ 
comparatively helpless if the government had really managed North. 
the war efllciently. That, however, they could not do, 



472 THE OPPOSING FORCES 

largely because they had filled the important government 
offices with a view to winning the support of this or that 
group of politicians, rather than securing high-class service. 
For this, as well as for the war policy itself, the King was 
partly responsible. A hard worker with an intelligent per- 
sonal interest in miUtary matters, George III was too much 
involved in "machine politics." Perhaps his greatest 
offense was his refusal in certain great crises to call in the 
most competent men, without regard to factional or personal 
differences. Lord North was in some respects a capable 
leader and in his personal views on American questions 
was more liberal than some of his associates. On one occa- 
sion, at least, he was ready to resign in order to escape 
responsibility for measures which he could not approve. 
He was not, however, strong enough either to control the 
government or to break away from it. 
Depart- Nowhere was the ministry weaker than in the departments 

^denc^' directly responsible for the conduct of the war. The secre- 
Germain and ^^j-y Qf gtate for the colonics, who directed the army in 

Sandwich. -' 

America, was Lord George Germam, a thoroughly unfortu- 
nate choice. During the Seven Years' War, he had been 
cashiered for disobedience to orders on the field of battle, 
a fact which certainly embarrassed his relations with officers 
who had to serve under his direction in America. He lacked 
also the executive ability and understanding of "grand 
strategy" which made Pitt a great war minister. In naval 
administration, tlie falling off since Pitt's time was even 
worse. At the head of the administration was Lord Sand- 
wich, a disreputable character, under whose administration 
the Admiralty reached perhaps its lowest level of corruption. 
The fighting The demoralizing influence of corrupt and factional 
politics at headquarters made itself felt in the fighting per- 
sonnel. Admirals complained of being sent to sea in ships 
that were unprepared, and there was some serious friction 
between officers who belonged to different political factions. 



services. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 473 

When France came into the war and the danger to the 
British Empire became more serious, the British navy pulled 
itself together and, after missing one great opportunity in 
1 78 1, established once more its superiority on the sea. With 
the army in America it was different. The tv/o commanders 
in chief, Howe and Clinton, were both second-rate men. 
Howe had some tactical skill; but he was dilatory and failed 
to get out of a victory the results which might reasonably 
have been expected. Though allowances must be made for 
earlier failures which made Clinton's work more difficult, he 
also was certainly not a military genius. 

It is, of course, impossible to say how far the outcome importance 
of the war was determined by any particular group of in- f*actors?^^ 
fluences. There can be no doubt, however, that the Ameri- 
can cause was powerfully aided by the internal troubles of 
the mother country as well as by the peculiar condition of 
international politics which enabled the colonies to secure 
support from England's enemies in continental Europe. 



BIBLIOGRAPmCAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, III, 210-225, 388-408. Fisher, S. G., General 
Struggle for American Independence, I, chs. XXXI, XLII. Tre- references, 
velyan, G. O., American Revolution, II, ch. XVII; III, XXIV- 
XXVI; IV, ch. XXVIII. Strongly British view in Belcher, J., - 
First American Civil War, I, chs. VII, VIII; II, chs. IX, X. 
Collected sources in Hart, Contemporaries, II, pts. VII, VIII. 

Winsor, America, VII, ch. I. Trevelyan as above, and his European 
George III and Charles Fox. Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, condiUons. 
chs. V-IX. (See also references in ch. XXI.) 

Oberholtzer, E. P., Robert Morris, chs. I, II.. Sumner, W. G., Civilian 
Financier and Finances of the Revolution, I and II, especially chs. ^gnf^^" 
XXIII, XXIV; also his Hamilton, chs. IV-VII. Van Tyne, 
C. H., American Revolution, chs. IX, XI, XIV. Eckenrode, H. J., 
Revolution in Virginia, chs. VII-XI. (See also references in 
ch. XXV.) 



474 



THE OPPOSING FORCES 



Sources. 



Loyalists and 
pacifists. 

Geographic 
and economic 
conditions. 



The army. 



Washington. 



Naval 
warfare. 



Continental Congress, Journals (Library of Congress edition; 
may be sampled for illustrations of business). Adams, J., Auto- 
biography in Works, III, 59-93; and Familiar Letters of John and 
Abigail Adams. Warren-Adams Letters (Mass. Hist. Soc). 

Van Tyne, Loyalists, chs. VI-XII. Sharpless, Quaker Govern- 
ment, II, chs. VI-VIII. 

CaUender, Selections from the Economic History of the U. S., 
159-168, Weeden, New England, II, chs. XX, XXI. Semple, 
E. C, American History and Its Geographic Conditions, ch. IV. 

Hatch, L. C, Administration of the American Revolutionary 
Army. Bolton, C. K., Private Soldier under Washington. Bever- 
idge, A. J., John Marshall, I, chs. III-IV (army conditions). 
See also chapters in Belcher, Fisher, and Trevelyan and for the 
British army, Fortescue, J. W., History of the British Army, III. 

Ford, P. L., The True George Washington, chs. IX-XI. Read 
as many as possible of his letters in Writings (Ford edition; also 
short collections by C. B. Evans and J. VUes). 

Clowes, W. L., History of the Royal Navy, III, ch. XXXI 
(Mahan). Fuller narrative in Allen, G. W., Naval History of the 
American Revolution. 



CHAPTER XXI 
EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776 TO 1780 

Considering the immense political importance of the Operations 
American Revolution, the military operations of the war scale. ^"^^ 
were on a surprisingly small scale. During a considerable 
part of the war, Washington's main army hardly reached 
the size of a modern brigade, and in the march to Yorktown 
in 1 781 he took with him only about two thousand American 
regulars, or roughly the equivalent of a present-day regiment. 
Compared with the European and American armies of the 
World War, the forces on both sides seem infinitesimal. 

Up to the end of June, 1776, the military results were The military 
fairly satisfactory from the American point of view. The inTyye^ 
expedition against Canada had failed, but the British had 
withdrawn from Boston and their attack on the Carolinas 
had broken down. For the moment no territory in any of 
the thirteen colonies was held by the British, though tlieir 
navy enabled them to control New York harbor and keep 
in touch with the strong loyalist element in that state. 
Now, however, the Americans had to face two invading 
armies, striking at opposite ends of the Hudson-Champlain 
waterway and threatening to isolate New England from the 
southern colonies. One of these expeditions, commanded 
by Sir Guy Carleton, the efficient governor of Quebec, 
gradually .pushed the Americans back from Canadian terri- 
tory and organized a naval force for the control of Lake 
Champlain. Fortunately the Americans had in Benedict 
Arnold a resourceful leader who knew something about ships. 

475 



47^ EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1 776-1780 

During the summer he improvised an effective little fleet, 
which, though finally destroyed by the British, held them 
back so long that Carleton gave up his proposed attack 
on Ticonderoga and returned to Canada, 
The British The attack on the lower Hudson was more serious and 

harbor! °^ came near being disastrous to the American cause. During 
July and August Sir William Howe, with an army of over 
thirty thousand British and German troops, established 
himself on Staten Island, while the fleet commanded by his 
brother, Lord Howe, controlled the entrance to New York 
harbor and the waters surrounding Manhattan Island. 
Facing this formidable British force stood Washington's 
army, trying to hold the city of New York. In actual num- 
bers he was weaker than Howe by several thousand men, 
and in almost everything else the disparity was still greater; 
for a large part of Washington's force consisted of untrained 
and poorly armed militia. The Continental army did not 
even have a friendly country behind it; for in the lower 
Hudson valley the neutral and Tory elements were very 
strong. 
Howe and It was a difficult problem that confronted the American 

Was mgton. ggj^gj-g^jg^ ^g ^ matter of military strategy the attempt to 
hold New York was probably a mistake and came near being 
fatal. Even John Jay, though himself a New Yorker, favored 
the destruction and abandonment of tlie city. There was 
a natural doubt, however, about the political effect of this 
course, and Washington decided against it. For the defense 
of New York, Washington had to control Brooklyn Heights, 
on the other side of the East River, and so the greater part 
of his army was stationed there, though not in sufficient 
force to resist Howe's army on its transfer from Staten Island. 
Fortunately, Howe moved slowly, partly because that was 
his habit but partly because he and his brother were trying 
to combine diplomacy with war. After some futile attempts 
to negotiate with Washington, a conference was held with 



LONG ISLAND TO TRENTON 479 

some of the leaders of the Continental Congress; but it 
came to notliing. Meanwhile General Howe proceeded with 
his military plan. 

Almost two months after the first landing on Staten Battle of 
Island, the British crossed the bay to Long Island, and on evTcuaUon**' 
August 27 fought the battle of Brooklyn Heights. The of New York. 
American army was defeated, lost many of its best troops, 
and probably could have been almost destroyed if Howe had 
followed up his advantage quickly. The delay gave Wash- 
ington his chance and on the night of August 29 he ferried 
his troops across to New York. In September Howe also 
landed on Manhattan, but again missed an opportunity to 
destroy the American army, v/hich gradually fell back to 
White Plains, and finally crossed the Hudson into New Jersey. 

Washington had saved his main army, but his fighting Washing- 
strength had fallen very low. Before long he had to leave 
northern New Jersey to the enemy and take refuge across 
the Delaware in Pennsylvania. The New Jersey Tories 
received the British with open arms, garrisons were posted 
across the state, and as winter came on the American cause 
seemed almost hopeless. Once more, however, Howe's 
lack of energy saved the day and Washington took full 
advantage of it. 

By December, 1776, Howe had withdrawn most of his Trenton and 
army to comfortable winter quarters at New York. One 
of his chief lieutenants. Lord Cornwallis, was ready to take 
a furlough in England, and the few thousand men left in 
New Jersey, chiefly Germans, were widely scattered, the 
outposts on the Delaware being dangerously far from their 
base at New York. The depredations of the German troops 
had also weakened the loyalist feeling in the neighborhood, 
and though the Hessian commander at Trenton had been 
warned, he failed to take proper precautions. It was a 
great opportunity for Washington; but he had to act quickly, 
for most of his soldiers had enlisted for short terms and were 



Princeton. 



480 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 

likely to leave him in a few days. So, crossing the Delaware 
and catching the enemy ofif his guard, Washington struck 
hard at the Trenton garrison and broke it up, taking many 
prisoners. This unceremonious interference with Howe's 
plans for a quiet winter forced Cornwallis to give up his 
proposed holiday and take the field against tlie rebels. His 
forces were superior to those of his enemy; but Washington, 
avoiding a general engagement, managed to defeat a detached 
portion of the British army at Princeton. Howe thereupon 
drew in his garrisons to the vicinity of New York, leaving 
the Tories to the vengeance of their Whig neighbors. Com- 
ing after a period of great discouragement, tlie victories of 
Trenton and Princeton gave the army new confidence in 
itself and in its commander. 

The new At the beginning of the new year the British held, in 

addition to the city of New York and its environs, the town 
of Newport, which had been taken a few weeks before. The 
control of these two harbors was an important advantage, 
secured largely through the cooperation of the navy; but 
in view of the great superiority of Howe's army, the results 
of his campaign seem hardly sufficient to justify the Order 
of the Bath conferred on him in recognition of his "abilities 
and activity." 

British In working out the British strategy for 1777, four men 

were principally concerned: Lord George Germain, in 
London; Howe, at New York; Carleton, at Quebec; and 
General Sir John Burgoyne, who, after serving under Howe 
at Boston, had gone home to offer advice and criticism to 
his superiors there. Howe was then planning an extensive 
campaign, aimed primarily at Philadelphia, the seat of the 
"rebel" government. This plan was approved in general; 
but the government could give him only a small part of the 
15,000 troops which he considered necessary for his purpose. 
Meantime, the way seemed open for another advance from 
the north against the American positions on the upper 



CAMPAIGNS OF 1777 481 

Hudson, and for reenforcing Howe's army with some of the 
British troops then stationed in Canada. So a northern 
army of invasion was formed, of which Burgoyne was made 
commander. Unfortunately for Burgoyne, especially, there 
was no proper coordination of his enterprise with that of 
Howe; the result was a humiliating defeat in one case, and, 
in the other, apparent success which had little strategic 
value. 

For some months Washington was in doubt as to Howe's Howe's 
plans; but at last the British transports entered Chesapeake campafgn.'^ 
Bay, having taken that route to avoid the American defenses 
on the Delaware. From the head of the bay, Howe's army 
moved northward overland toward Philadelphia, while 
the navy, after convoying the troopships, began clearing 
obstructions in the Delaware River. Thereupon, in Septem- 
ber, 1777, Washington's army moved southward to block 
Howe's advance. With a force decidedly inferior to Howe's, 
especially in discipline, Washington engaged the enemy at Chads Ford 
Chads Ford on the Brandywme, but had to fall back with mjfnto^. 
heavy losses. About three weeks later the British entered 
Philadelphia. Whatever may be said about Washington's 
strategy in this campaign, he had improved the fighting 
spirit of his army and he now made a determined attack on 
a British detachment at Germantown, only to suffer another 
defeat. Weakened by these reverses, Washington could not 
support the garrisons on the Delaware and by the end of the 
year the British navy had complete control of that river and 
the bay. 

In a superficial sense, Howe's capture of the rebel capital Howe at 
was a great stroke and the loyalists of the neighborhood ^'^ ^p 
were in high spirits. Local business men enjoyed a profitable 
trade with the British army and Howe settled down for 
another comfortable winter. It is doubtful, however, whether 
the British gained any solid advantage by this campaign. 
Once more Howe contented himself with merely defeating 



482 



EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1 776-1 780 



Burgoyne's 
expedition. 



St. Leger in 
the Mohawk 
valley. 



his enemy when he might have crushed him. It was a 
question whether Howe had taken Philadelphia or, as 
Frankhn said, Philadelphia had taken Howe. The army 
which before had been concentrated at New York was now 
divided; and, with the American army still in the field, 
land communication between these divided forces was at best 
diflScult and might become almost impossible. 

Meantime, Burgoyne's invasion had ended in absolute 
disaster. The general plan of the northern expedition was 
apparently to strengthen Howe's army by bringing to its 
support some of the best English and German troops in 
Carleton's contingent, now reasonably secure against an 
American attack. Unfortunately for Burgoyne, the instruc- 
tions given by Lord Germain left Howe free to follow out 
his original plan of attacking Philadelphia and so prevented 
any effective cooperation between the two commanders. 
It was also expected that Burg03me's southward expedition 
would be supported by a secondary movement from the 
Mohawk valley under the command of Colonel St. Leger, 
who was expected to rally the loyalists and their friends 
among the Iroquois. Sir William Johnson, the famous 
Indian superintendent, was dead, but his son and nephew 
inherited some of his prestige with the Indians. In the 
early months of the war, the Johnsons, with many other 
Tories, had been driven from their homes by a combination 
of the German frontiersmen with the Albany Whigs under 
General Philip Schuyler. Now these loyalist exiles were 
organized in military companies, with whose help and that 
of the Indians St. Leger was ex-pected to crush the Mohawk 
valley Whigs, and then join Burgoyne at Albany. The 
plan seemed promising; but it was held up by the stubborn 
resistance of the American garrison at Fort Stanwix, or 
Fort Schuyler, which controlled the portage between Lake 
Ontario and the Mohawk. The Mohawk valley Germans 
now came to the rescue, under the command of General 



THE SARATOGA CAMPAIGN 483 

Herkimer. At Oriskany the Americans were caught in an Oriskany. 
ambush in which Herkimer was fatally wounded; but they 
were finally victorious. The Indians soon deserted their 
British allies; by the end of August, St. Leger had to give 
up the siege of Fort Schuyler and return to Canada. 

Burgoyne's main expedition began fairly well. The Burgoyne's 
campaign of 1776 had left the British in control of the Lake t™ upper 
Champlain waterway as far as the neighborhood of Ticonder- Hudson, 
oga, and the Americans soon gave up that post also. From 
this point on, however, Burgoyne's troubles became 
serious. First came a slow march through the wilderness 
to Fort Edward on the Hudson, — with an excessive pro- 
portion of noncombatants, including women and children, 
and much superfluous baggage. Fort Edward was reached 
by the end of July but Burgoyne was now uncomfortably 
far from his base and he had been obliged to weaken his 
effective force by detaching part of it to secure his com- 
munications. The army now had to get what supplies 
it could from the surrounding country; but a detachment 
of Germans sent into Vermont for this purpose was over- 
whelmed at Bennington by the New England militia under Bennington. 
Captain John Stark and lost several hundred men, a serious 
matter for an army already too small for the work in hand. 
Further advance into the enemy's country was evidently 
dangerous; but Burgoyne felt bound by his instructions and 
pushed on along the western bank of the Hudson. 

Meantime, the American forces had occupied a good American 
position at Bemis Heights, commanding the river road toward q^H ^^^^ 
Albany. Here and in the adjacent country there were 
akeady twenty thousand fighting men, some of them regu- 
lars, but a much larger number militia and other more or 
less temporary recruits, drawn chiefly from New England. 
The command of such an army was not easy, and General 
Schuyler, who had been in charge, did not get on well with 
the New Englanders. Through their influence in Congress, 



484 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1 776-1 780 

Schuyler was superseded by Horatio Gates, whose experi- 
ence in the British army had given him a certain prestige. 
The position which Gates held was naturally strong 
and was scientifically fortified by Kosciusko, the Pohsh 
volunteer. 
Burgoyne's On September 19, tlie British moved forward again and 

Saratoga! ^*' ^ sharp engagement followed, which is known sometimes 
as the battle of Stillwater and som.etimes as the first battle 
of Freeman's Farm. Though not a clean-cut victory for 
either side, it had serious consequences for Burgoyne. His 
advance was stopped and he lost another large fraction of 
his effective force. His one hope was a strong cooperating 
expedition from New York; but no such expedition was 
undertaken until two weeks after the battle of Stillwater, 
and then it did not get beyond Kingston, fifty miles south 
of Albany. Meantime, Burgoyne made another attempt 
to break through, but was repulsed witli heavy losses in the 
second battle of Freeman's Farm. He could not go forward, 
and, with the enemy closing in on all sides, it was soon too 
late to retreat. On October 17, 1777, the northern invasion 
came to a disastrous end with the surrender of Burgoyne's 
army at Saratoga. 
Valley Important as this victory was for the American cause. 

Forge. ^YiQ next few months were in many respects discouraging. 

Just before Christmas, Washington's army went into winter 
quarters at Valley Forge. The record of that winter will 
always stand as one of the most painful in American history, 
not only because of the terrible hardships suffered by the 
army but even more so because those hardships were un- 
necessary. There was, said Washington, "an eternal round 
of the most stupid management," by which "the public 
treasure is expended to no kind of purpose, while the men 
have been left to perish by inches with cold and nakedness." 
The American camp was surrounded by a rich countryside; 
but even men who were not loyahsts sold their produce 



EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS 485 

for Howe's hard money rather than take the ahnost worthless 
paper of the Continental Congress. 

The man who bore the brunt of these troubles could intrigues 
not even count on the hearty support of those he served. Washington. 
Congress and the army itself were divided into hostile 
factions and many believed that Washington was not equal 
to his great task. Gates, who after his victory at Saratoga 
was transferred to the newly organized Board of War, 
became the nucleus of a discontented faction among the 
officers. Conspicuous among these malcontents was Thomas 
Conway, an Irish officer who had been a colonel in tlie 
French service and was now anxious for a high command in 
the American army. This faction gained a point when 
Conway was made inspector-general of the army; but public 
opinion on the whole supported Washington and in the 
spring of 1778 the "Conway cabal" collapsed. 

To the men who suffered at Valley Forge and to their European 
friends, the prospect must have seemed dark indeed. Fortu- nients!^ 
nately, however, events were then taking place in Europe 
which changed the whole character of the war and made the 
ultimate victory of the American cause almost inevitable. 
The British government was willing to offer new concessions 
in the hope of securing peace without the final disruption 
of the empire; but the time for compromises of this kind 
had long passed. Much more important were the develop- 
ments in France and in Spain. For more than two years, 
these two great continental powers had followed with keen 
interest the widening breach between the two divisions of 
the English-speaking people. The French government had The attitude 
helped the United States so far as it could without getting "nd s^pdn, 
into a direct conflict with England. In Spain there were "775-1777- 
divided counsels and some misgivings about encouraging 
rebel colonies who might become dangerous rivals on the 
Gulf coast and in the Mississippi valley; but in general 
the Spaniards followed the French policy of furnishing money 



I 



486 



EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 



Conditions 
in France. 



Vergennes. 



and supplies to the Americans. Until the autumn of 1777, 
this cautious policy seemed to work fairly well from the 
standpoint of the Bourbon governments. It was weakening 
the British on both sides of the Atlantic, and accomplishing 
this result without involving either France or Spain in the 
heavy cost of another world war. Now, however, the news 
of Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga forced the diplomatists 
of Paris and Madrid to reconsider the whole problem in the 
light of this new fact. 

It was a complicated diplomatic game in which the young 
republic was just beginning to take a hand. The center of 
interest was the French government, whose nominal head 
since 1774 was Louis XVI. This well-meaning but mediocre 
gentleman inherited the autocratic traditions of his great 
ancestor, Louis XIV; but the real strength of the French 
monarchy had been seriously impaired. The civil government 
was corrupt and its finances were badly demoralized by 
reckless extravagance at court and a vicious revenue system. 
The national wealth was also diminished by antiquated 
restrictions on industry and commerce. Altogether the 
times were "out of joint" and Louis XVI was clearly not 
the man to set them right, though he had some able advisers, 
like the great economist, Turgot, who attempted thorough- 
going reforms in finance, commerce, and industry, only to 
be driven from ofiice through the influence of those who 
profited by the old abuses. 

Of the French ministers during this period, the most 
significant for American history was Charles, Count of 
Vergennes, the minister for foreign affairs. Vergennes was 
an experienced diplomat, thoroughly imbued with the tra- 
ditions of French foreign policy and determined to rees- 
tablish French leadership in European politics. To him the 
American revolt was interesting chiefly because it weakened 
England, thus readjusting the balance of power and improving 
the relative position of France. From this point of view, 



FRENCH POLICY 487 

Vergennes wished to encourage the Americans and help 
them as much as possible without involving France pre- 
maturely in war. On this point, however, there were sharp 
differences of opinion at the court. Among liberal French- 
men tliere was some real sympathy for the American cause, 
but tliis sentiment did not at first have much effect on the 
government. Others, including the King himself, disliked 
the idea of aiding rebels against a legitimate sovereign, and 
conservative financiers wished to avoid policies which might The policy 
lead to an expensive war. In the end, however, Vergennes °^ ^^"^^ 
carried his point. With the cooperation of Beaumarchais, 
a versatile politician and playwriter, substantial help was 
given to the Americans through various agencies, including 
a commercial company, promoted by Beaumarchais, which 
shipped large quantities of munitions and other supplies to 
the American rebels. 

Under ordinary conditions such a policy could not long a waiting 
be followed by a nominally neutral government without p°"^^- 
bringing it into the war. For the present, however, England 
preferred to avoid a complete break, and Lord Stormont, 
the British ambassador in Paris, limited himself to protests 
against unneutral acts. Vergennes also kept up the outward 
forms of neutrality, avoiding, for instance, any official recog- 
nition of the American union or its representatives in Paris. 
Before throwing off the mask and entering the war directly, 
he needed certain assurances, including a reasonable proba- 
bility that the Americans would see the war through to the 
point of absolute independence. Another very desirable, 
if not essential, condition was the cooperation of Spain. 

So far as secret support of the rebels was concerned, French and 
Spanish and French policies were similar; but the problem ^of^ts^^f 
of the Madrid government was more complicated. For view. 
Vergennes, intervention was primarily a question of European 
politics and the balance of power. Having Uttle interest in 
the revival of French colonial power in America, the devel- 



488 EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1 776-1 780 

opment of a new nation across the Atlantic meant for him 
chiefly a check upon the British Empure. For Spain, colonial 
issues were more important, and she was anxious about the 
expansion of British naval and military forces which might 
endanger her own colonies. The Spanish government was 
also annoyed because England seemed to be supporting 
Portugal in a South American boundary dispute. If war 
developed out of these issues, Florida might be recovered 
from Great Britain, and perhaps even Cromwell's old con- 
quest of Jamaica. Of course Spain also had important 
European interests at stake. There was always the hope of 
getting the British out of Gibraltar, and weakening then 
hold on the Mediterranean. Possibly Portugal might again 
be brought under Spanish control. Attractive as these 
prospects were, the Spanish government was not sure that 
they were sufficiently so to justify another serious war. 
It seemed quite possible, indeed, that England might give 
up something to her old rival as the price of Spanish neu- 
trality. In spite of these doubts, the early autumn of 1776 
found both the Bourbon governments on the verge of war. 
The Declaration of Independence seemed to prove that 
the British colonies could no longer be satisfied within the 
empire, and Count Aranda, the Spanish ambassador at 
Paris, joined Vergennes in support of the war policy. Pres- 
ently, however, came the news of Washington's defeat on 
Long Island and his retreat before Howe's advancing army. 
Vergennes therefore decided to wait. 

Franklin Under these somewhat discouraging circumstances Ben- 

in France. .... 00 

jamm Franklm began his long and distinguished service as 

the American envoy at Paris. He was then seventy years 
old, and there was something heroic in his willingness to take 
not only the ordinary risks of an ocean voyage, but also 
the chance of falling into the hands of the enemy. Techni- 
cally, Franklin was one of three commissioners chosen by 
Congress to negotiate with France and other friendly powers; 



FRANKLIN IN FRANCE 



489 



but his associates, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee, were not 
very helpful to him. Unlike either of those men, Franklin 
brought to his work an established reputation and an extraor- 
dinarily attractive personality. He liked the French people 
and they were enthusiastic about him. He had enough 
worldly wisdom to appreciate the importance of social 
conventions and yet enough independence about his own 
speech and conduct to give him a kind of picturesque interest 
as the representative of a younger and simpler society. 
Settling down at Passy, in the suburbs of Paris, he soon led an 
active social life, dining out *'slx days in seven" and "being 
treated with all the politeness of France and the apparent 
respect and esteem of all ranks from the highest to the 
lowest." At a time when even the aristocracy was beginning 
to feel the influence of liberal, not to say revolutionary, 
ideas, Franklin's personality established a new contact be- 
tween the liberalism of the Old World and that of the New. 

Much of Franklin's energy went into a kind of propaganda Propaganda 
which contrasted the sins of the British with the virtues of ^nj ""(-og- 
his own countrymen. British credit, he said, was crumbling; nition. 
but the Americans were frugal, honest people who could be 
trusted to pay their debts. Of course one great object of 
this propaganda was to secure loans, but it was also impor- 
tant to secure definite recognition from the French govern- 
rnent. Such recognition Vergennes was not yet ready to 
give, but in an interview with the American commissioners 
soon after Franklin's arrival the French minister was as 
sympathetic as could reasonably be expected. Franklin Spain and 

, ^, , " ,.„ , . . • 1 1 o • 1 the United 

also had some dmicult negotiations with the Spanish am- states, 
bassador. Count Aranda. The Americans were willing 
to help Spain recover Florida and even to cooperate in an 
attack on the British West Indies; but there was one issue 
on which the two nations could not agree. That was the 
free navigation of the Mississippi, a matter of special impor- 
tance to those Americans who, like Franklin, were deeply 



490 



EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 



interested in the settlement of the West. By urging 
this point, the United States was virtually announcing a 
policy of expansion which was almost certain to conflict 
with the colonial ambitions of Spain on the Gulf coast and 
in the Mississippi valley. 

So matters stood until, in the last weeks of 1777, the news 
of Burgoyne's surrender convinced Vergennes that "watch- 
ful waiting " was no longer sufficient. The Americans seemed 
to have at least a good chance of winning their independ- 
ence. Now or never was the time for France and Spain to 
strike the decisive blow which should break up the British 
Empire and secure the gratitude of the American people. 
"We must now," Vergennes argued, "either support the 
colonies or abandon them." If the alliance were not formed 
before England offered independence, France and Spain 
would lose the benefit to be derived from America and 
England could still control its commerce. In spite of 
Vergennes's arguments, the controlling influences at Madrid 
were now too cautious to follow his lead. So he had to 
get on for a time without Spanish cooperation. 
. Vergennes's negotiations with the American commis- 
sioners were now pushed forward rapidly and on February 
6, 1778, two treaties were signed, one a general treaty of 
amity and commerce between France and the United States, 
and the other a formal alliance. A year later Spain decided 
to enter the war as an ally of France; but the Spaniards 
could never bring themselves to a direct alliance with the 
United States. Considering all the circumstances, the French 
treaties were liberal. Neither party was to make peace 
without the consent of the other, and for both parties the 
absolute independence of the United States was an indis- 
pensable condition. The French expressly gave up any claim 
to their former possessions in North America and agreed 
to cooperate in the defense of any territory secured by the 
United States as a result of the war. In return the United 



THE FRENCH ALLIANCE 491 

States made a similar promise regarding the French posses- 
sions in the West Indies. On this understanding the two 
powers agreed to act together both in the war and in the 
negotiations for peace. 

The real importance of the alliance cannot be measured Effect on 
by the military and naval forces which France sent across government, 
the Atlantic, though these were considerable. The great 
fact was that the British government now had to face a 
serious danger near the very heart of the empire. The 
commerce-destroying operations of the American navy and 
American privateers could now be carried on freely from 
French ports, unhampered by neutrality regulations. Once 
more British supremacy in home waters was menaced by 
the French fleet, soon to be reenforced by that of Spain. 
All in all, this was one of the great crises in the history of 
the British Empire. Naturally the opposition leaders were 
bitter in their denunciation of the ministry which, having 
brought the country into the war, seemed so incompetent 
to carry it on. Some of the Whigs were aheady convinced 
that American independence was inevitable. 

Grave as the danger was, there were compensations. Pitt's last 
It was easier to rouse enthusiasm for a war with a rival the empire. 
European power than for the uninspiring struggle with 
revolted colonists who, in the opinion of many Englishmen, 
had some right on their side. Pitt now made a dramatic 
appeal to his countrymen for a great patriotic effort to 
hold the empire together, and there was some talk of getting 
him to form another war ministry; but he died almost im- 
mediately afterwards. Even without first-rate leadership, 
the English nation braced itself for a supreme effort and in 
the end came out better than could reasonably have been 
expected. It was too late, however, to avoid a long 
series of reverses or to realize Pitt's ideal of a reunited 
empire. 

The new drain on England's resources resulting from 



492 



EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 



Effect of 
the alliance 
on British 
strategy. 



Battle of 

Monmouth. 



The French 
fleet in 
American 
waters. 



the war in Europe seriously handicapped British operations 
in America and this was perhaps tlie most important con- 
tribution made by France to the winning of American 
independence. At the same time the direct intervention 
of the French navy in American waters brought some notable 
results. In the spring of 1778, a French fleet under Admiral 
d'Estaing sailed for America and the British soon had to 
take this new factor into account. Hitherto British command 
of tlie sea had been fairly complete; but now their West 
Indian colonies were threatened and troops had to be with- 
drawn from the continent for service in the islands. It 
was also more difficult to insure regular communications 
by sea between the British armies at New York and Phila- 
delphia. Accordingly, Sir Henry Clinton, who succeeded 
Howe as commander in chief, was ordered to concentrate 
his forces by evacuating Philadelphia and transferring that 
part of the army to New York. In June, 1778, the order 
was carried out, to the great disappointment of the Penn- 
sylvania loyalists, a large number of whom decided to 
take refuge with the British army in New York rather than 
remain at the mercy of their Whig countrymen. 

As Clinton marched across New Jersey, Washington 
prepared for another trial of strength. The discipline and 
morale of the army had been much improved, particularly 
through the efforts of Steuben, the new inspector-general, 
and Washington could attack with some prospect of success. 
On June 28, he fell upon Clinton's army at Monmouth; 
but tlie attack miscarried, largely through the misconduct 
of General Charles Lee, and Clinton got safely into New 
York. 

During this summer, the arrival of d'Estaing's fleet 
gave the Americans their first experience of joint action, 
and it was disappointing. Though his fleet was superior 
to that of Lord Howe, then holding New York harbor, 
d'Estaing decided not to risk an attack there. He agreed, 



CAMPAIGNS OF 1778 AND 1779 493 

however, to cooperate with an American land force in an 

attack on tlie British post at Newport. The plan failed, 

partly because of the superior skill and aggressiveness of 

Lord Howe, who followed d'Estaing to Newport. Before 

a decisive engagement was fought, a storm came up in which 

both fleets were badly damaged. Thereupon the French 

admiral withdrew his fleet to Boston for repairs and the 

expedition was abandoned. Whatever may be said for 

d'Estaing's course, it certainly made him unpopular with 

his American allies, especially with the New Englanders. 

Notwithstanding this fiasco, British strategy was still much 

influenced by the presence of the French fleet, and when 

d'Estaing, after some months in the West Indies, came 

north again in 1779, the British garrison at Newport was Evacuation 

withdrawn. °^ ^''"^''' 

After Burgoyne's defeat no important offensive opera- British 
tions were undertaken by the British in the northern states, inThe'south. 
though the coast towns suffered from naval and military 
raids. They kept their grip on the city of New York and 
the lower Hudson, but the significant movements of the 
later years were in the South. Here the British relied largely 
on the loyalists, who were especially strong in the Carolinas 
and Georgia, and hoped with their help to detach those 
states from the Union. For a time the new British policy 
was apparently successful. In December, 1778, Savannah 
was captured and, with the help of a detachment which Capture of 
came up from the new British province of East Florida, and^Charles- 
Georgia was conquered. In 1779 the Americans, with the ^°"- 
aid of the French fleet, tried to recover Savannah; but 
once more a promising plan of cooperation broke down, and 
shortly afterwards d'Estaing sailed for Europe. With the 
French fleet out of the way, the British could move their 
troops more freely by sea, and in 1779 Clinton took seven 
thousand men from New York to Charleston, then held by 
a comparatively weak American force under General Lincoln. 



494 



EUROPE AND AMERICA, 1776-1780 



Battle of 
Camden. 



Partisan 
warfare. 



The turn 
of the tide. 



In May, 1780, Charleston was taken, together with Lincoln's 
army, and for the next two years the most important town 
on tlie southern seaboard was held by the British. 

A few weeks after the surrender of Charleston, Clinton 
returned to New York, but the British campaign for the 
conquest of South Carohna went forward under Corn- 
wallis. Almost everywhere the loyalists were triumphant 
and the Whigs discouraged. The state government almost 
ceased to exist and some of the Whigs were ready to take a 
neutral position for the remainder of the war. The Conti- 
nental Congress sent reinforcements from the North under 
General Gates, but, though he had an able lieutenant in 
General Kalb, he was overmatched by Cornwallis. In 
August, 1780, the two armies met near Camden, South 
Carolina, after night marches in which each hoped to sur- 
prise the other, and the Americans were badly beaten. 
The Continental regulars fought well under their brave 
commander, Kalb, who was fatally wounded during the 
battle; but the militiamen, with Gates, took refuge ui 
headlong flight. This disaster left the Americans with no 
real army in the Carolinas. The blunders of the British 
authorities at Charleston fortunately revived the Whig 
feeling, and there were able guerrilla leaders, like Marion, 
Sumter, and Pickens, who sometimes made life uncom- 
fortable for the British and their loyalist allies; but the 
British also had some capable officers for such work, notably 
Colonel Tarleton and Major Ferguson, the commander of 
a well-known regiment of loyaHst volunteers. Altogether 
these were dark days for the southern Whigs. 

It was at this critical moment, when the Carolina sea- 
board seemed hopelessly lost, tliat tlie West took up the 
fight and revived the failing courage of the Whigs by striking 
one of the most effective blows in the whole history of the 
Revolution. How this came about is a story which must 
be reserved for the next chapter. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



495 



Channing, United States, III, 229-320. Van Tyne, American 
Revolution, chs. VII-XIII, XVI. Fiske, American Revolution, I, 
chs. V-VII; II, chs. VIII-X, XIII. Fisher, Struggle for 
American Independence, I, chs. XLIII-LII; II, chs. LIII- 
LXXXIV. Lecky, American Revolution. 

Hart, Contemporaries, II, chs. XXXI-XXXIII. Moore, 
Diary of the American Revolution. 

References on Washington in ch. XX. Adams, C. F., Studies, 
Military and Diplomatic, chs. II-IV. Avery, E. M., United Stales, 
V, VI (excellent illustrations). Ford, W. C, Washington, I, chs. 
XII-XVI; II, chs. I, II. Fortescue, J. W., History of the British 
Army, III, chs. VIII-XVII. Greene, F. V., Revolutionary War, 
chs. II-VI. Winsor, America, VI, chs. IV, V. 

Mahan, A. T., Influence of Sea Power, iddo-iySj, 330-376, 
and his Major Operations of the Navies in the War of Americaji 
Independence, chs. I-VI. 

Bancroft, United States (author's last revision), especially V, 
pt. IV, chs. X, XVI-XXI. Corwin, E. S., French Policy and the 
American Alliance (excellent; cf. Van Tyne in Am. Hist. Review, 
XXI, 528-541). Tower, C, Lafayette in the American Revolu- 
tion (detailed narrative). Hazard, B., Beaumarchais and the 
American Revolution. French accounts in Lavisse, E., Histoire de 
France, IX, bk. II, pp. 91-126, and Doniol, H., Participation 
de la France a V etablissement des Etats Unis (standard, with 
sources) . 

Franklin's letters in Writings (Smyth edition), VII, VIII; 
very readable. Wharton, F,, Revolutionary Diplomatic Cor- 
respondence, II. 



General 
references. 



Collected 
sources. 

Military 
history. 



Naval 
operations. 



European 
conditions 
and the 
French 
Alliance. 



Sources. 



Western 
phases of the 
Revolution. 



Frontier 

communities. 

Vermont. 



The South- 
west. Ken- 
tucky. 



CHAPTER XXn 
INDEPENDENCE WON 

When the Revolution broke out, it was mainly the 
work of men who lived within a hundred mUes of the coast, 
and the number of permanent settlers who had actually 
crossed the mountains was insignificant. Before the war 
ended, however, the frontiersmen on the eastern and west- 
ern slopes of the Appalachians made some real contributions 
to the American cause, and even the Mississippi valley 
was the scene of some notable events. 

When actual lighting began, in 1775, tlie air was full of 
plans for new colonies, or commonwealths, independent of 
the existing colonial governments. In the north, the Vermont 
frontiersmen who helped to defeat Burgoyne's army were 
troubled by the conflicting claims of New York and New 
Hampshire, and tried to solve the problem by organizing 
a state government of their own. In 1778 they adopted 
their first state constitution, though they had to wait thir- 
teen years before they were admitted to the Union. The 
German settlers on the Mohawk seem to have had no such 
aspirations; but in Pennsylvania new settlements were 
forming around Fort Pitt, which it was proposed to combine 
with others in the present limits of West Virginia and 
eastern Kentucky, in order to form the new colony of 
Westsylvania. In central Kentucky was the colony of 
Transylvania, promoted by the North Carolina speculator, 
Richard Henderson, with the cooperation of Daniel Boone, 
the most notable figure among the pioneers and trail makers 
of his day. The Kentuckians gave up for a time their hope 

496 



THE FRONTIERSMEN 497 

of a separate government and in 1777 were organized as a 

county of Virginia, which claimed this territory under the 

charter of 1609. It was difficult, however, for the Virginia 

government to keep in touch with^ these outlying settlements 

and to protect them against the Indians. In the north- Beginnings 

eastern corner of what is now Tennessee, near the head- ° eonessee 

waters of the Tennessee River, a handful of frontiersmen 

from Virginia and North Carolina adopted, just before the 

Revolution, the so-called ''Watauga Compact" and, like 

the early New Englanders, based upon it a rudimentary 

kind of self-government. Migration was not stopped by 

the war, and in *i78o a new and quite isolated settlement 

was formed on the Cumberland River, the beginning of 

what is now Nashville. These Tennessee settlements were 

within the charter limits of North Carolma and were brought 

under the jurisdiction of that state, though here, as in 

Kentucky, the relation was not wholly satisfactory. 

The frontiersmen differed among themselves about the Whigs and 
issues of the Revolution. All along the line from New York the border. 
to South Carolina, Georgia, and the Floridas, British agents, 
like the Johnsons in New York and Stuart in the South, 
had buUt up a strong loyalist influence among the traders 
and the Indians. Tories were especially numerous among 
the recent Scotch immigrants, particularly the Highlanders. 
Over against these Tory frontiersmen may be set such 
Whig groups as the Green Mountain pioneers in Vermont, 
the Germans of the Mohawk valley, and a large proportion 
of the Irish and Scotch-Irish from Pennsylvania southward. 
Nowhere was the feeling between Whig and Tory so bitter 
or the fighting so savage as among these border people. 

In dealing with the Indians the Americans were handi- The Indian 
capped in various ways. It took time to build up an organ- ^^° ^^' 
ization as effective as that developed by some of the British 
agents. In some respects, too, the attitude of the Indians 
reminds one of that taken by them during the last French 



498 



INDEPENDENCE WON 



British in- 
fluence in 
the West. 



Border 
warfare. 



Difficulties 
of frontier 
defense. 



war. In that conflict the Indians had rightly regarded the 
French, whose interests were chiefly in trading or missions, 
as less objectionable than the English, who began with 
hunting and trading but were more likely to develop per- 
manent settlements and gradually crowd the Indians out. 
Now the role of the French was partly taken over by the 
British; in fact, many old Canadian voyageurs were working 
for British companies. It was tlie American frontiersmen, 
on the contrary, who now represented the slow but sure 
advance of white settlements into the old Indian hunting 
grounds. The Montreal merchants, protected by the Brit- 
ish navy, could bring in a steady supply of European goods, 
including arms and ammiunition, to be exchanged for peltries; 
for the Americans this was much less easy. So the bulk 
of the Indian trade was held by the British merchants, and 
with trade went a large amount of political influence. From 
Montreal this influence reached out far to the westward, 
with garrisons and trading posts at Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, 
and Mackinaw, on the Great Lakes; also at Vincennes, 
Kaskaskia, and Natchez, in the Mississippi valley. The 
Iroquois of the North, the Cherokees of the South, and 
most of the western tribes, thus kept within the British 
sphere of influence, were constantly raiding tlie pioneer 
settlements, from the Mohawk valley to the lonely clearings 
of Kentucky and Tennessee. Among the British officers 
most active in promoting this border warfare was Henry 
Hamilton, commander of the post at Detroit. 

Many Americans, not only frontiersmen and land specu- 
lators but also seaboard merchants, were eager to curb 
British influence in the West and protect American interests 
in the fur trade; but the problem was far from simple. 
After all, independence had to be won, if at all, on the eastern 
side of the AUeghenies, and it was impossible to detach 
large forces for the conquest of the West. Now and then, 
however, some tragic incident occurred which made strenuous 



THE NORTHWEST 499 

action necessary; as, for instance, the terrible massacre 
of 1778 in the Wyoming valley of Pennsylvania. The next 
year Washington sent into tiie Iroquois country a retaliatory 
expedition which was fairly effective; but it was not the 
end of border warfare. 

Meantime, notable events were taking place in tlie Mis- ciark|s 
sissippi valley. In 1777, the Kentuckians, who had suffered toThe'^'^'^ 
severely from Indian raids, for which they held the British ^^^^'^°^^ 
largely responsible, were eager to strike back at the British 
posts in the Northwest. Accordingly one of their ablest 
and most daring leaders, George Rogers Clark, went to 
Virginia and secured the backing of that government. In 
the spring of 1778 he led some of his fellow backwoodsmen 
down the Ohio to the eastern edge of the Illinois country, 
and then overland to the old French settlement of Kaskaskia. 
The regular garrisons had been withdrawn from this neigh- 
borhood; but Kaskaskia, then held with a few militia by 
a French officer in the British service, was still an important 
center of British influence. This post was easily captured 
by Clark on the night of July 4, 1778, and this stroke was 
soon followed by the taking of Vincennes on the Wabash. 

Clark's daring move naturally provoked retaliation, and The capture 
in the winter of 1778-1779 a British ex-pedition from Detroit, °^ Vmcennes. 
commanded by Colonel Hamilton, recovered Vincennes and 
threatened the Virginians at Kaskaskia. Clark determined 
to strike first, and in February, 1779, made a heroic march 
across the flooded prairies to Vincennes. Taken off his 
guard, Hamilton was forced to surrender and was presently 
sent to Virginia as a prisoner of war. These conquests had 
been made, not strictly for the United States, but for Vir- 
ginia, which now claimed jurisdiction under its charter of 
1609 and organized the new "county of Illinois." 

American activities in the Mississippi valley naturally Spanish ac- 
brought out the complicated problem of relations with Spain, southwest ^ 
In 1778 the Spaniards held the west bank of the Mississippi 



500 



INDEPENDENCE WON 



Frontiers- 
men in tho 
soutliorn 
cjuupiii^ns. 



Kit\e:s 
Mountain. 



from St. Louis to New Orleans. East of Now Orleans along 
tJie Gulf were the liritish provinces of Wesl and East Elorida, 
acquired from France and Spain during tlie last war. Re- 
senting this Britisli occupation of the Gulf coast, the Span- 
iards were willing to help the rebellious colonies by shipping 
military supplies up the Mississippi, from whicli tliey could 
go on up the Ohio as far as Fort Pitt. On the outbreak of 
war between Great Britain and Spain, in 1779, tlie Spaniards, 
untler the command of Galvez, their governor at New 
Orleans, attacked the posts in West Florida, taking first those 
on the lower Mississippi, then Mobile, and linally, in 1781, 
Pensacola. The successes of tlie Americans in tlie Mississippi 
valley and of the Spaniards on the Gulf coast weakened 
British prestige; but they also made more evident tlie real 
conflict of interests between Spain and the United States. 

Tliese developments in the West seem to have little to 
do with the movements of British and American forces on 
the Atlantic seaboard; but in the soutliern campaigns 
of 17S0 the "men of the western waters" were brought 
into closer touch with the main operations of the w'ar. 
In the early autumn of that year lliese sturdy pioneers 
were able to strike a blow w'hich, coming as it did soon after 
the ilisaster of Camden, proveil to be a kinil of turning point 
in the whole history of tlie war in the South. 

When Cornwallis had disposed of Gates's army and was 
moving on to tho conquest of North Carolina, he felt the need 
of larger forces. Accordingly he sent Major Pa t rick Ferguson, 
one of his best ofhcers, to gather up recruits among the 
loyalist mountaineers. Ferguson was fairh' successful in 
drawing the Tories; but he also aroused tlie antagonism of 
the Whig frontiersmen and soon found that ho had blundered 
into a kind of hornets' nest. At Kings jNIountain, on tlie 
eastern edge of tJio nunintain country, ho was surrounded by 
a swarm of backwoodsmen, main- of whom had come from 
the now settlements in Tennessee. Ferguson and his loyalist 



A CRITICAL TIME 501 

supporters fought bravely, hut he himself was killed and 
his command practically destroyed. Tlie numbers engaged 
in this battle — not far from a thousand on each side — 
were quite out of proportion to its real importance. Corn- 
wallis's plan for the North Carolina campaign had to be 
held up and the Whigs got a chance to rally for a new stand 
under more effective leadership. 

This ray of light came in one of the darkest moments of A critical 
the war. The most startling event of the year 1780 was, Ar'Jioid's 
perhaps, the success of the British in corrupting Benedict ii'tajion. 
Arnold, previously regarded by Washington as one of his best 
officers. Arnold's plot to surrender the fortress of West 
Point on the Hudson fortunately failed, though he himself 
escaped and soon began fighting his ohl friends. The execu- 
tion of Major Andre, the unlucky British agent in this 
ugly transaction, has always excited sympathy; but it was 
strictly in accordance with the rules of war. More serious 
than this spectacular incident was the increasing weakness 
of the revolutionary government. It was during this year 
that Washington wrote some of his most pessimistic letters. Weakness of 
"I see," he wrote, "one head gradually changing into fe,i,.rii?io'n. 
thirteen . . . one army branching into thirteen." The 
Articles of Confederation were not yet ratified and Congress 
was still clinging to unbusinesslike methods. The army, 
poorly fed and clothed, was in an ugly mood and in the 
following winter there was a serious mutiny among the 
Pennsylvania troops. 

Gradually, however, the skies began to clear. In March, Progress in 
1 78 1, the Articles of Confederation were adopted through MeVation"' 
the ratifyuig act of Maryland, which had hitherto held ^'H^ted. 
off because of the fear that Virginia and a few other states 
would monopolize the western lands. The adoption of the 
Articles changed very little the practical v/orking of the 
Continental government but at least gave it a kind of legal 
basis. More imoortant in its immediate results was the 



502 INDEPENDENCE WON 

tardy decision of Congress to reorganize the chief executive 
departments — war, treasury, foreign affairs — each with 
a single responsible oflScer at its head. The ablest of these 
department heads was undoubtedly Robert Morris, who 
was able to make at least some improvements in the 
finances. 
The war in The chief military developments during the first six 

the South. nionths of 1 78 1 were in the South, where Cornwallis was 
getting ready to resume his advance into North Carolina. 
The American army now gathering to oppose him was not 
an altogether hopeful organization, composed as it was of 
a few hundred regulars and a rather uncertain militia; 
but it had one great asset in the person of its new general, 
Nathanael Nathanael Greene. For many months Greene had served 
Greene. loyally and efficiently as the quartermaster-general of the 

Continental army; but he was too much of a fighter to like 
such work indefinitely, and he took up energetically the 
southern command, for which he was chosen by Washington. 
His chief lieutenant was Daniel Morgan, one of the best 
officers in the Continental army; but he also had the 
cooperation of several successful partisan leaders, and the 
cavalry, though small in numbers, had an important part 
in the campaign. Though Cornwallis's army was stronger, 
he had one serious handicap: almost every forward move 
increased the difficulty of keeping up communications with 
the seaboard, on which he was largely dependent for 
supplies. Greene understood very well the enemy's weak- 
ness in this respect, and he made the most of it. 
The Carolina On the opening of the new year Greene's little army was 
campaigns .^ ^^^ ^^.^ sections, both near the boundary between 
North and South Carolina. The main army, under his own 
command, was at Cheraw, South Carolina, on the Great 
Pedee River, a few miles south of the state line. The other 
division, under Morgan, was over a hundred miles to the west- 
ward looking after some British posts in that neighborhood. 



THE CAROLINA CAMPAIGNS OF 1781 $03 

Here, at a place called the Cowpens, Morgan was attacked The 
in January, 1781, by Colonel Tarleton, the ablest and most ^^P^'^* 
ruthless of the British cavalry commanders in the South. 
Fortunately Morgan was equal to the emergency, and 
Tarleton's force was almost annihilated. Having disposed 
of Tarleton, Morgan now fell back before Cornwallis's army 
to join General Greene; but their combined forces were Greene's 
insuflficient to cope with the British and so they steadily ^^^^^^^' 
retreated northward, drawing Cornwallis after them. By 
the middle of February this retreat had carried the two 
armies across North Carolina to the Virginia border, where 
Greene took up his position behind the Dan River and 
Cornwallis gave up the pursuit. 

Though Cornwallis had temporarily driven the Americans Later cam- 
out of North Carolina and might claim in a sense to have ^jf^^ ° 
conquered the state, his position was not at all satisfactory. 
By persistent running away, Greene had drawn the British 
far from their base and consolidated his own scattered 
forces. Now he was ready to change his tactics and take 
the offensive. Returning to North Carolina, he met Corn- 
wallis at Guilford Courthouse, and though the battle 
taken by itself may be called a victory for the British, their 
loss was so heavy and their whole position after it so pre- 
carious that Cornwallis retired to the seaboard at Wilming- 
ton. Shortly afterwards he left the Carolinas, in order to 
join Arnold's small British army in Virginia. With Corn- 
wallis out of the way, Greene returned to South Carolina, 
where Lord Rawdon, with Charleston as his principal base, 
was trying to hold a few rallying points for the loyalists 
of the back country. Between May and September there 
were several engagements in this region, most of them either 
British victories or drawn battles; but the net result was 
that the British left the upcountry loyalists to their fate British 
and contented themselves with holding Charleston. Except H 't'h^^" 
for the Charleston garrison and that of Wilmington, the seaboard. 



504 



INDEPENDENCE WON 



Carolinas were practically freed from British control. Con- 
sidered in relation to the world war of which they formed 
a part, these encounters, in which the aggregate numbers 
engaged rarely exceeded five thousand men, seem petty 
enough; but they helped to cloud still further the gloomy 
prospect then unfolding before the British pubhc. 

In Europe there was growing antagonism between Great 
Britain and the continental powers which had so far remained 
neutral. With the belligerents on both sides doing their 
best to destroy enemy commerce, it was almost inevitable 
that neutrals also should suffer. There was no clear agree- 
ment about neutral rights and duties, and this led to many 
complaints, especially against the British navy, which 
generally kept the upper hand in European waters. The 
complaints were not, however, all on one side. England 
was annoyed by the sheltering of American war vessels in 
Dutch ports and the development of an immense munition 
trade between the Dutch West Indies and the United States. 
In these controversies nearly all the European powers be- 
came involved in one way or another. Finally, under the 
leadership of the great Russian empress, Catherine II, a 
formidable group of neutral governments, including the 
Scandinavian countries, Prussia, and the German Empire, 
organized a league called the "Armed Neutrality." Though 
the league was formed to defend neutral rights against 
belligerents generally, it was aimed chiefly at Great Britain, 
principally because France was willing to accept the prin- 
ciple that "free ships make free goods," while the British 
insisted on tlieir right to seize enemy property even under 
neutral flags. In the case of the Dutch Republic, the trouble 
with Great Britain developed by 1781 into open war. Thus 
Great Britain was almost isolated, with the three chief 
maritime powers of Europe against her and most of the 
others more or less unfriendly. 

In this dangerous isolation England's chief reliance as 



THE WAR ON THE SEA 505 

usual was on her navy; but even this was seriously chal- Naval 
lenged. In 1779 the French and Spanish fleets appeared i^yg-^'^ga 
in force off the British Isles and for a time there was real 
fear of an invasion. From this particular danger, England 
was saved largely by the mismanagement of the allied 
fleets; but the destruction of British shipping sent up the 
rates of marine insurance. In tlie work of commerce de- 
stroying the Americans had a large part. In 1779 Franklin 
wrote of one privateer which in three months had taken, 
ransomed, burned, or destroyed more than thirty British 
vessels. It was in this year also that Paul Jones won his 
famous fight with the Serapis. The next year was one of 
alternate victory and defeat for the British navy. It began 
with the successful campaign of Admiral Rodney on the 
coast of Spain, where he defeated the Spanish fleet off Cape 
Vincent, besides relieving the besieged British garrison at 
Gibraltar. Later in the year Rodney took his fleet to the 
West Indies, but failed to bring on a decisive engagement 
with the cautious French admiral. Meantime the enemy 
had succeeded in capturing a great transport fleet bound for 
the West Indies with British troops and supplies for the 
island garrisons. The naval historian, Mahan, describes 
this as "the greatest single blow that British commerce had 
received in war during the memory of men then living." 

The entry of Holland into the war, though adding to in the West 
the number of England's enemies, gave Rodney's West " ^^' ^^^^" 
Indian fleet a new opportunity. The Dutch West Indies 
were no longer protected by a neutral flag and in February, 
1781, the island of St. Eustatius, described as practically 
" a military and naval arsenal for the American revolutionists 
and their allies," was taken by the British. A few months 
later, however, this victory was partly offset by tlie French 
seizing one of the smaller British islands, and the summer 
passed without a real test of strength between the opposing 
fleets. So matters stood when Admiral de Grasse, the new 



5o6 



INDEPENDENCE WON 



Admiral 
de Grasse. 



French reen- 

forcements; 

Rocham- 



beau. 



Problems of 
the allies. 



commander in chief of the French fleets in American waters, 
was called to cooperate with tlie allied armies in what proved 
to be the last important operation of the Revolutionary 
War. 

During the spring of 1781, Washington's main army was 
on the upper Hudson, watching the British in the city 
of New York. The American outlook was still clouded. 
The French general, Rochambeau, wrote as late as June, 
1781, that Washington had "but a handful of men"; that 
America had "been driven to bay" and all her resources 
were "giving out at once." So far as direct participation 
in the continental campaigns was concerned, the French 
alliance had been disappointing and the French government, 
already embarrassed by its financial contributions to the 
American cause, felt that the United States was not carry- 
ing its fair share of the burden. Fortunately, this mutual 
irritation was overcome, largely through the steady good 
sense of Franklin and the efforts of Lafayette, who made a 
long visit to France in 1779. New grants were made to the 
United States from the French treasury, and in the early 
summer of 1780 five thousand French regulars landed at 
Newport under the command of Count Rochambeau, a 
veteran of the Seven Years' War and one of the most 
distinguished officers of the French army. 

More than a year passed, however, before the French 
troops were effectively used. For most of that time the 
British kept their superiority in American waters and were 
able to blockade the French at Newport harbor. Meantime 
the American and French commanders were exchanging 
ideas. Washington wished to attack New York, where 
Clinton's army had been weakened by the sending of troops 
to the southward. In July, 1781, the main body of the 
French army joined the Americans on the Hudson; but it was 
doubtful whether the allies were strong enough to dislodge 
Clinton from his strong position. 



YORKTOWN 507 

At this critical moment, the alHed commanders found a A new 
new opportunity in Virginia, where small British detach- fn^i^^nia^ 
ments under Generals Arnold and Phillips had just been 
reenforced by the arrival of Cornwallis. For a time this 
shifting of the British strategy from the Carolinas to Virginia 
seemed to work fairly well. The Americans under Lafay- 
ette were not strong enough to face Cornwallis, who was 
sure the "boy" could not long escape him. In June, 1781, 
Tarleton broke up the state legislature, then sitting at 
Charlottesville, on the eastern slope of the Blue Ridge, 
compelling Governor Thomas Jefferson to beat a hasty 
retreat from his neighboring estate of Monticello. Humiliat- 
ing as this experience was to the Virginians, Cornwallis 
soon found that he had really gained very little. Lafay- 
ette was hard pushed at times but always managed to get 
away. Finally, in accordance with instructions from Clinton 
at New York, Cornwallis retired to the peninsula between 
the York and the James rivers. On the nortliern side of Comwallis at 
this narrow strip, at the little village of Yorktown, Cornwallis ^^''^'^own. 
settled down, fortifying himself from attack by land and 
counting on the navy to keep open his communications by 
sea. Here he was fairly safe so long as his friends controlled 
the sea. If, however, that control were interrupted, his 
position might become very dangerous. 

It was on this famous old Virginia peninsula that Washing- The 
ton, after long years of patient waiting, found at last his campaign, 
supreme opportunity. Fortunately also Admiral de Grasse, 
in response to urgent appeals from Washington and Rocham- 
beau, had just decided to bring his fleet north to Chesapeake 
Bay. Whatever was done, however, had to be done quickly, 
for De Grasse explained that his stay would be short and the 
troops which he was to bring with him would be needed for 
other service during the winter. So in the latter part of 
August, with a warning to Lafayette not to let Cornwallis 
escape from the trap in which he had placed himself, 



5o8 



INDEPENDENCE WON 



Victory of 
the French 
fleet. 



Surrender of 
Comwallis. 



The wax not 
yet over. 



Washington began a rapid overland march from the Hudson 
valley to Virginia. He had with him a handful of Conti- 
nental troops, about two thousand in all, and four thousand 
French regulars under Rochambeau. About a month later 
the allied armies were closing in upon the British lines at 
York town. 

On August 30, a few days after Washington left for the 
South, De Grasse's fleet anchored within the capes of 
Chesapeake Bay. A week later, a British fleet under 
Admiral Graves appeared off the Capes, but after a sharp 
engagement was forced to withdraw. So the French kept 
their station, hemming in the British army by sea as the 
allied armies were about to close in by land. In the last 
days of September, the allies began their attack on the 
British lines, and on October 19, after a siege of about three 
weeks, Cornwallis surrendered his whole command. Two 
days later Graves's fleet again appeared, this time bringing 
General Clinton with reenforcements for the besieged army; 
but they were too late to prevent tlie greatest disaster 
which had come to the British cause since Burgoyne's defeat 
at Saratoga. For this crowning victory, the Americans were 
largely indebted to the French alliance. Not to speak of 
the financial support which kept the American armies in the 
field, about two thirds of the regular troops engaged in 
the siege were French, and without the cooperation of the 
French fleet the whole operation would have been im- 
possible. 

In Europe and America the effect of the surrender at 
Yorktown was generally recognized as decisive; but the war 
was not yet over and there were many anxious months 
ahead. More than thirty thousand British soldiers still 
remained in the United States, chiefly at New York with 
smaller garrisons at Charleston and Savannah. Even in this 
hour of victory the American government seemed almost at 
the end of its resources. Although Washington urged the 



END OF THE WAR 509 

need of continued effort in order to secure a satisfactory- 
peace, it was hard to overcome the general weariness and 
apathy. Notwithstanding the ratification of the Articles 
of Confederation, supplies of money and men still depended 
on the good will of individual states and only a fraction of 
the money called for was actually paid in. 

Fortunately, the English people also were tired of the English 
war, and the disaster at Yorktown convinced nearly every- turning 

one that tliere was no chance of subduing tlie colonies. The f^^'n^t 

° the war. 

King was stubborn and the North ministry was held to- 
gether for a few months longer; but the logic of events was 
too much, even for George III. For six months after 
Yorktown the tide continued to run strongly against tlie 
British. In the West Indies they lost not only their recent 
conquest of St. Eustatius, but even some of their own 
islands. Across the Atlantic, British prestige in the Medi- 
terranean was weakened by the loss of Minorca. Economic 
developments were also discouraging; shipping was still being 
destroyed on a large scale, expenditures were steadily rising, 
new loans were needed, and the public credit was shaken. 
All these things naturally strengthened the opposition 
party. Even former supporters of the ministry had been 
turned against it by increasing evidences of corrupt and 
inefficient administration. Long before Yorktown, the gov- 
ernment majorities had begun to go down; as early as 1780 
the House of Commons passed an often-quoted resolution, 
declaring that the power of the Crown had increased, was 
increasing, and ought to be diminished. After Yorktown 
the attack was pushed with new vigor, and by March, 1782, 
the House of Commons had committed itself squarely Fall of 
against the continuance of the war. Lord North gave up [JfniSS^^ 
the fight and the King had to accept his resignation. 

The new ministry was headed by the same Lord Rock- Liberal 
ingham who had proposed the repeal of the Stamp Act; tiie"nevv 
several of his associates were also known for their liberal ^""stry. 



5IO 



INDEPENDENCE WON 



ideas on American questions. Among them were such men 
as Burke, the eloquent advocate of conciliation in 1774 
and 1775; Charles James Fox, who had gone to great lengths 
in expressing his sympathy with the American revolution- 
ists; and Lord Shelburne, the ablest member of the little 
group that followed the elder Pitt. With such a government 
Americans could negotiate with some chance of mutual 
understanding. It was also fortunate for the new ministry 
that the naval war began to turn in favor of the British. 
In April, 1782, a French fleet which was expected to combine 
with the Spaniards in an attack on Jamaica was beaten by 
Admiral Rodney, whose victory restored British superiority 
in the West Indies. The thirteen colonies were indeed lost; 
but so far as her European enemies were concerned, England 
could look forward to peace terms more favorable than had 
seemed probable only a few months before. 



General 
references. 



Sources. 



The last 
campaigns. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, III, 300-342. Van Tyne, American 
Revolution, chs. XV, XVII. Winsor, America, VI, 447-467, and 
chs. VI-IX. Fisher, Struggle Jor American Independence, 
II, chs. LXXXIV-CV. Fiske, American Revolution, II, chs. 
XI, XII, XIV, XV. Bancroft, United States, V, pt. IV, chs. 
XXII-XXIII, XXVI-XXVIII; pt. V, chs. I-IV. Lecky, 
American Revolution. 

Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. XXXIV. Moore, Diary 0} the 
American Revolution. Washington, Writings (Ford edition), IX. 
Franklin, Writings (Smyth edition), VIII. 

Fortescue, J. W., History of the British Army, III, chs. XVII- 
XX. Ford, W. C, Washington, II, chs. I-III. Greene, F. V., 
Revolutionary War, chs. VII-VIII. Greene, G. W., Nathanael 
Greene. McCrady, South Carolina m the Revolution, I, II (detailed 
accounts of partisan warfare; cf. Channing, United States, III, 

P- 343)- 

Corwin, French Policy atui the American Alliance. Jusserand, 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



511 



J. J., With Americans of Past and Present Days (essays on Rocham- 
beau and Washington). Tower, C, Lafayette. Trevelyan, G. O., 
George HI and Charles Fox (Whig view of English poHtics). 
Mahan, Influence of Sea Poiver on History, 1660-178 j, chs. X, XI. 
Jameson, J. F., St. Eustatius in the American Revolution {Am. 
Hist. Review, VIII, 683-708). 

Mahan, Major Operations, especially chs. VII-X. Allen, G. W., 
Naval History, II. De Koven, A. F., Paul Jones, especially I, 
ch. X-XIV. 

Alvord, Centennial History of Illinois, I, chs. XV, XVI. Hender- 
son, A., Creative Forces in Western Expansion {Am. Hist. Review, 
XX, 86-107) and his Conquest of the Old Southwest, chs. XI-XVIII. 
Roosevelt, Winning of the West. Thwaites, Daniel Boone. 
Turner, Western State Making in the Revolutionary Era {Am. 
Hist. Review, I, 70-87). 

Thwaites, R. G., and Kellogg, L. P., Revolution on the Upper 
Ohio and Frontier Defence on the Upper Ohio. J. A. James, Clark 
Papers (Illinois State Historical Library, Collections). 



French co 
operation. 
European 
politics and 
the world 



Naval 
warfare. 



The West. 



Sources on 
the West. 



CHAPTER XXIII 
REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779 TO 1784 



Informal 
negotiations; 
Hartley and 
Franklin. 



The 

Rockingham 
ministry. 
Shelbume's 
overtures. 



Before the fall of the North ministry, the British govern- 
ment had made several proposals looking towards peace 
with the colonies on some basis short of complete independ- 
ence. There were also a few English liberals who hoped 
and worked for reconciliation throughout the war, among 
them David Hartley, a member of Parliament and an old 
friend of Franklin's. Hartley visited Paris in 1778 and 
tried to interest the American envoy in his peace plans; 
but Franklin pointed out that Congress, having committed 
itself to common action with the French, could not desert 
its new allies or make any terms short of independence. 
Notwithstanding this disappointment, Hartley continued his 
friendly efforts and, during the winter of 1781-1782, after 
a conference with Lord North, he suggested a kind of ar- 
mistice for a term of years. This suspension of hostilities 
he proposed to use for friendly conferences about the future 
relations of the two countries. Of course, Franklin's original 
objection applied equally well to this new proposal. 

Even after the Rockingham ministry came in, there were 
difficulties to be overcome; but the conditions were much 
more favorable. In March, 1782, Burke wrote to Franklin 
expressing his hope of a "speedy peace between the two 
branches of the English nation." A little later Franklin, 
having been told that Shelburne would be glad to hear from 
him, sent a courteous note recalling their old acquaintance 
and expressing his satisfaction with Shelbume's recent 
appointment. Starting with this informal correspondence, 

S12 



AMERICAN COMMISSIONERS 513 

Shelburne, who was now secretary of state for the colonies, 
gradually prepared the way for more regular diplomatic 
intercourse. 

Meantime, the Continental Congress had opened the American 

way for negotiations by appointing commissioners and siraerfand 

formulating peace terms. In 1779 John Adams was sent their jn- 

° ^ ' • ^ •' structions. 

abroad with definite instructions as to certain points which 
were regarded as essential. This first mission did not make 
much headway, however, partly because there was then no 
prospect of the British granting independence, and partly 
because Adams did not get on well v/ith the French. Ver- 
gennes and his associates thought the Americans were 
asking too much and considered Adams too aggressive in 
his attitude toward their own government. So in 1781 
the French minister at Philadelphia persuaded Congress 
to change its action in three important particulars. First, 
Adams was to share his authority witli four other com- 
missioners — Franklin, John Jay of New York, Henry 
Laurens, a South Carolinian who was for a time president 
of tlie Continental Congress, and Thomas Jefferson; secondly, 
the commissioners, though still required to insist on independ- 
ence, were given more discretion in otlier respects; thirdly, 
they were to make "the most candid and confidential com- 
munications upon all subjects" with the French ministers, 
taking no step in the negotiations "without their knowl- 
edge and concurrence." 

Of the five men named by Congress, Jefferson declined Franklin, 
the appointment, and Laurens, then a prisoner in London, 
arrived in Paris too late to have much influence on the 
negotiations. The three who really counted, therefore, were 
Frankhn, Adams, and Jay. Of these three men, Franklin 
undoubtedly stood first in experience, in tact, and in 
appreciation of European and especially French points of 
view. More than twenty years of his long life had been 
spent in Europe, where he had a prestige and a wide 



514 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779-1784 

personal acquaintance which were most useful to his coun- 
try. Realizing more keenly than his colleagues how much his 
country had depended on French support, he was more 
anxious to maintain relations of mutual confidence between 
the two nations. He was now seventy-six years old and 
not so active as his younger colleagues; but even his critics 
had to admit that his mind was keen and vigorous. 

John Adams. In the spring of 1782, John Adams was nearing the end 
of a successful campaign for financial support and diplo- 
matic recognition from the Dutch government. Before 
he left the Hague to join Franklin in Paris, he had got from 
the Dutch not only considerable loans, but also the first 
American treaty with any European government since the 
French alliance of 1778. Adams was justly proud of this 
achievement, all the more because his methods were not 
those recommended to him by the French government. 
He believed that his success was a striking vindication 
of independent American diplomacy. Unfortunately, Adams 
was too much inclined to emphasize his own achievements 
and not always generous in his references to his older col- 
league. If FrankUn was too optimistic about French diplo- 
macy, Adams was at times oversuspicious, and tact was 

John Jay. certainly not his strong point. John Jay, the youngest 
of these three colleagues, was first known as a moderate 
leader of the New York Whigs; but for several years he 
had taken special interest in foreign affairs, first in Congress 
and then, since 1779, as American envoy to Spain. There 
he spent two exasperating years without securing even dig- 
nified recognition as the representative of an independent 
government. This humiliating experience gave Jay a pessi- 
mistic view of Bourbon diplomacy in general. Unlike 
Franklin, he did not like the French people, agreeing with 
Adams that the commissioners should emancipate them- 
selves as much as possible from French tutelage. 

From the French point of view there was some question 



THE FRENCH VIEW 515 

just how independent the United States had a right to be The French 
at that time. The war was, after all, not merely an affair ^^^^ ° 
between Great Britain and the United States, To the success 
of her ally France had made large contributions in sea 
power, in soldiers, and in money lent or given outright. 
Even now Robert Morris was asking France for new loans, 
which in his opinion were made necessary not so much by 
the poverty of the American people as by their unwilling- 
ness to shoulder a fair share of the burden. This demand, 
too, was made at a time when the desperate condition of 
the French treasury had become generally known. So far, 
the United States seemed to be the chief beneficiary of the 
alliance; was it not fair, then, that America should pay some 
attention to French interests and the French point of view? 

Unfortunately the problem was still further complicated The French 
by the fact that France, the ally of the United States, was spain. 
also the ally of Spain; and this latter alliance, in which the 
United States had no direct part, was nevertheless also a 
factor in the winning of American independence. To secure 
the Spanish alliance, Vergennes had made promises which 
had to be considered in the final settlement. Though the 
terms of the treaties which the French had made with the 
United States and with Spain were not necessarily incompati- 
ble, there was a real conflict of interests between Spain and the 
United States, especially in the Mississippi valley. Vergennes 
probably meant to keep faith with both his allies; but, in 
view of the moderate demands made by his own country, 
he also felt justified in trying to check what he considered 
the unreasonable pretensions of either Spain or the United 
States. The Spaniards were indifferent and at times hostile 
to the United States, and the Americans felt similarly toward 
Spain; but Vergennes had to think of both. 

So matters stood when the overtures of the British 
government were clearing the way for formal negotiations. 
These negotiations were, however, delayed by differences 



516 



REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779-1784 



Shelbume's 
views. 



Oswald and 
Franklin. 



Dissensions 
in the 
British 
cabinet. 



of opinion inside the British government. Within the 
Rockingham ministry there were then two distinct groups, 
headed respectively by Shelburne, secretary of state for the 
colonies, and Fox, secretary for foreign affairs. Of these 
two men Shelburne was undoubtedly much the better in- 
formed about America; but, like his old leader, Pitt, he 
was deeply interested in preserving the empire and hoped 
almost to the last that the colonies might accept something 
less than absolute separation. Shelburne was undoubtedly 
a very able man, who as the French diplomatist, Rayneval, 
once said, took "a broad view of affairs"; but he had a 
certain reserve which led many of his contemporaries, both 
European and American, to doubt his sincerity. 

Shelburne now saw that American independence would 
probably have to be conceded in the end, but he still 
thought of the Americans as colonists and wished to keep 
the negotiations in his own colonial ofi&ce. He also hoped 
for close trade relations with the United States. A few 
weeks after he took office, he followed up his first approaches 
to Franklin by sending to Paris a confidential agent, named 
Richard Oswald. Oswald was a Scotch merchant, who had 
been in America and had some business interests there; he 
was not a professional diplomat and was sometimes sur- 
prisingly frank in acknowledging the strength of his 
opponents' case. He found Franklin willing to talk and 
got from him a plan of settlement, which included, among 
other things, the cession of Canada to the United States. 

Meantime, the British government as a whole had no 
definite program. Parliament was considering a bill to 
authorize negotiations with the revolted colonies, and there 
were also some strenuous debates in the cabinet. Unlike 
Shelburne, Fox took independence for granted and thought 
that negotiations with the United States, as with any 
foreign government, should be handled by him as foreign 
secretary. Accordingly he too had his agent in Paris, who, 



THE SHELBURNE MINISTRY 517 

though primarily concerned with the French government, 
also conferred with Franklin. Thus the rivalry of the two 
secretaries was reflected in their agents at Paris. Evidently 
these two departments could not be allowed to work indefi- 
nitely at cross purposes and Fox finally brought the issue 
to a head in the cabinet meeting by proposing the immediate 
recognition of American independence. This proposal, which 
would have taken the American negotiations out of Shelburne's 
hands, was defeated. Shortly afterwards Rockingham died, 
the ministry was reorganized with Shelburne as its head, Shelbume 
and Fox resigned. So the deadlock ended with Shelburne '" control, 
in control. Meanwhile Parliament authorized negotiations 
with the colonies, and Oswald was commissioned for that 
purpose. Another agent, Fitzherbert, was appointed to 
negotiate with France; but the two men were now working 
under the same general direction. 

Now that the British cabinet had settled its internal The question 
differences another dilhculty developed. Jay, who had reco^nkion!^^ 
recently joined Franklin in Paris, objected to Oswald's 
commission because it spoke simply of "colonies" and did 
not formally recognize the United States as independent. 
Vergermes thought this was making too much of a formality, 
but Jay persisted and Shelburne decided to accept the situ- 
ation, without haggling over technical points. On Sep- 
tember 21, Oswald received a commission authorizing him 
to negotiate with the "Thirteen United States of North 
America." The vital question of independence was now 
disposed of; but there were still difficult and far-reaching 
issues to be decided, and more than two months passed 
before the preliminary treaty was signed. 

First of all, it was necessary to define the territory of Territorial 
the United States. So far as the coast line was concerned, 
the question was comparatively simple. Notwithstanding 
Franklin's suggestion to Oswald, Congress did not expect 
to get Canada, and on the northeastern border it was a 



boundaries. 



Si8 



REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779-1784 



American 
claims to 
the trans- 
Allegheny 
country. 



The views 
of France 
and Spain. 



question of detail as to the exact line between Maine and 
Nova Scotia. So, on the south, it was easily agreed that 
the United States would not claim Florida or the Gulf coast. 
The important and difficult question was the fate of the 
territory between the AUeghenies and the Mississippi. In 
1779, Congress had insisted on the line of the Mississippi; 
but the instructions of 1781 did not make this an ultimatum 
and there was room for difference of opinion about the justice 
of the American claim. 

American arguments on this subject began with certain 
colonial charters, particularly those of Massachusetts, Con- 
necticut, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, all of which 
contained sea-to-sea clauses, covering in the aggregate, 
the whole trans-Allegheny territory from the Great Lakes 
to the Floridas. The clause in the royal Proclamation of 
1763, forbidding grants beyond the mountains, was correctly 
held to be only temporary; as for the Quebec Act, extending 
the boundaries of that province to the Ohio and the Mis- 
sissippi, that was dismissed as one of those encroachments 
on American rights which had brought on the Revolution. 
These paper claims were now supported by the actual 
movement of population into the West. The growth of 
pioneer settlements in Kentucky and Tennessee, the activity 
of Virginia and Pennsylvania traders in the Mississippi 
valley, and Clark's operations in the Illinois country, all 
served to stimulate American interest in the West. Not 
all Americans, however, were equally interested. Some 
delegates from states which had no sea-to-sea charters 
were comparatively indifferent on western questions. 

The most serious objection to the American claim came 
not from Great Britain but from Spain, whose hopes of 
controlling the trade of the GuK and the Mississippi were 
threatened by the American westward movement. On this 
point the French government could not satisfy one ally 
without disappointiQg the other, and though Vergennes 



PROBLEM OF THE WEST 519 

stood by the guarantee of American independence, he 
questioned whether the United States had a fair claim to the 
country beyond the mountains. In September, 1782, 
Rayneval, Vergennes's secretary, proposed to Jay a plan 
which showed plainly the influence of Spanish ideas. The 
territory south of the Ohio between the AUeghenies and 
the Mississippi was to be a vast Indian reservation, the 
western part being placed within the Spanish "sphere of 
influence" and the eastern within that of the United States. 
The fate of the country north of the Ohio was to be 
"regulated" by the court of London. 

Much troubled by the attitude of the French govern- shelbume 
ment and especially by a visit of Rayneval to London, Jay Amencan ^ 
sent a confidential messenger to Shelburne. Fortunately <^^^™- 
Jay's effort to secure a more direct and independent under- 
standing with the British government harmonized with the 
policy of Shelburne, who, having once agreed to recognize 
American independence, was anxious to establish friendly 
relations with the new government, incidentally detaching it, 
so far as possible, from France. Perhaps Shelburne's study 
of American problems before the war showed him the futil- 
ity of trying to check the western expansion of the seaboard 
colonies. So before long the British and American commis- 
sioners came together on the general outHnes of the terri- 
torial settlement. With slight regard for Spanish claims, it 
was agreed that the United States should extend to the 
Mississippi, sharing the free navigation of that river with the 
British. 

In working out these articles, Jay and Adams, with the Action of 
reluctant consent of Franklin, not only ignored their instruc- \^^ envoys. 
tions, which required them to consult the French ministers The secret 
at every point, but they also agreed on a secret article 
about the Floridas which gave the British a distinct pref- 
erence over the Spaniards. If at the close of the war the 
Floridas were held by Spain, the northern boundary of 



520 REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1779-1784 

West Florida was to be the thirty-first parallel; but if 
Great Britain kept these provinces, then the boundary was 
to be drawn somewhat farther north, beginning with the 
mouth of the Yazoo River. When the final treaty was 
made, Spanish possession of the Floridas was assured, and 
the line was therefore drawn at the thirty-first parallel; 
but for many years afterwards the Spaniards were, quite 
naturally, unwilling to accept a boundary line about which 
they had not been consulted. 
The northern In discussing the northern boundary one plan proposed 
boundary. ^^^ ^^^ extension of the forty-fifth parallel, now the north- 
ern boundary of New York, straight west to the Mississippi. 
This would have given the United States a large part of 
the present province of Ontario: but Lake Superior would 
have become wholly British, and with it the rich mineral 
resources of northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. 
On the whole, therefore, it was fortunate that the present 
water boundary through the upper St. Lawrence and the 
Great Lakes was finally adopted. 
The _ Other questions, then discussed at great length, are now 

of less general interest. One was the question of the northern 
fisheries, for which John Adams, the New England member 
of the commission, felt himself particularly responsible. His 
theory was that the fisheries, not only on the high seas but 
even in the territorial waters of Newfoundland and other 
parts of British America, were part of a joint stock acquired 
by the colonies with the mother country while still partners 
in the same empire. The partnership was now dissolved; 
but the United States was still entitled to share in this joint 
interest, even within British jurisdiction. This was an 
extreme position, not only from the British point of view 
but from that of the French also, who had certain claims 
on the Newfoundland fisheries. Adams was stubborn, how- 
ever, and won a substantial victory. 

On the questions of territorial boundaries and the fisher- 



PROBLEM OF THE LOYALISTS 521 

ies, the American commissioners did remarkably well. Of British 
the other issues discussed, two proved particularly difficult. ' 

These were the question of American debts to British credi- 
tors and the compUcated problem of the loyalists. For 
Scotch and English business men the first question was 
vitally important, since the balances due by American 
planters and merchants to their correspondents in London 
were very large. The outbreak of war seemed to Americans 
an excellent opportunity for cancehng these debts and that 
was done in one state after another. Now, however, the 
British goverrmient demanded that such obligations should 
be recognized as still binding. FrankHn questioned whether 
the commissioners or Congress had a right to bind the 
States in this matter, but Adams declared that he had no 
intention of cheating anybody, and so made possible a 
mutual agreement that there should be no interference with 
the collection of just debts due by citizens of either country 
to those of the other. 

Still more troublesome was the problem of the loyalists. The problem 
The British position in relation to their American supporters loyalists. 
was very difficult. Though one of the principal parties to 
the war, the loyalists had no voice in the final settlement. 
Some were exiles in England or within the British lines in 
America and others clung to their old homes; their property 
had been confiscated and many had suffered untold hard- 
ships. For all this distress little sympathy was felt either 
by the Whigs in the United States or by the commissioners 
in Paris. From their point of view the Tories were traitors 
to America, who by their advice to the British government 
had been largely responsible for bringing on the conflict. 
Having chosen their part, they must now take the conse- 
quences. This attitude was natural enough after a civil war 
marked by harshness and brutality on both sides; but it was 
equally natural that the British should feel differently. For 
them it was clearly a debt of honor to protect those who 



522 



REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1 779-1 784 



Compromise 
on the 
loyalists. 



Preliminary 
treaty of 
1782. 



had sacrificed so much in their devotion to the ideal of a 
united empire. If at any time British statesmen were 
incHned to forget these obhgations, they were painfully re- 
minded of them by the throng of exiles in London. At 
times the deadlock seemed almost hopeless, but a compromise 
was finally reached. It was agreed, first, that Congress 
should recommend to the states some concession, especially 
to those loyalists who had not taken up arms on the British 
side; and secondly, that there should be no further proceed- 
ings against anyone because of his part in the war. The 
promise to make recommendations to the states was fulfilled, 
but proved to be of little value because of the intense 
popular feeling against the Tories. Taken together, how- 
ever, these two measures enabled the ministry to "save its 
face" to some extent at least. 

The document finally signed by Oswald and the American 
commissioners, on November 30, 1782, was not strictly a 
treaty, but an agreement on certain articles which were to 
be incorporated in a formal treaty after Great Britain had 
come to terms with France. In this way the formal re- 
quirements of the French alliance were satisfied, though 
tlie proceedings as a whole hardly showed the spirit which 
might have bieen expected between allies. At last, in Jan- 
uary, 1783, preliminary articles of peace were signed by France 
International and Spain, by which the Bourbon powers recovered some of 
the* war*? the ground lost in 1763. France made a slight gain in the 
West Indies and Spain secured not only her old colony of 
Florida but also that part of the Gulf coast east of New 
Orleans which had been a part of French Louisiana. Though 
Great Britain had to reconcile herself to the loss of the thirteen 
colonies, she got through the war with less damage than might 
have been expected, considering the combination of forces 
against her. Of all the powers, America was the only one 
to gain any great advantage from the war. The French 
monarchy had won a supposed advantage by wealcening 



CRITICISM OF THE TREATY 523 

England, but paid for it by a burdensome debt. Spain 
failed to shake England's hold on Gibraltar, and though 
she held more territory in North America than ever before, 
she had to face a new rival in the young American republic, 
whose hopes of western expansion conflicted squarely with 
her own. 

During the peace negotiations, the American commis- French and 
sioners were acting with little opportunity to consult their crurdsm^of 
constituents. They were subject to instructions of which ^^^ treaty, 
they did not wholly approve but which could not be changed 
without long and perhaps disastrous delays. When the work 
was at last done, they were naturally anxious about the im- 
pression it would make in America. Congress was finally 
convinced that the commissioners had on the whole made 
a satisfactory bargain; but on some points there was sharp 
criticism. The articles on the loyalists were unsatisfactory; 
there was no arrangement for the reopening of commercial 
relations with tlie West Indies; finally, the commissioners 
had failed to obey their instructions in the matter of con- 
sulting with the French government. Special point was 
given to this last criticism by a communication from Ver- 
gennes, and his resentment was embarrassing because Con- 
gress was then making fresh demands on the French treasury. 
Before long, however, the controversy died down and the 
articles were accepted. Meantime, Franklin undertook the 
task of pacifying Vergennes and made the best of an 
embarrassing business. Vergennes accepted the situation, 
and the French government made a new loan of six millions 
to the United States. 

Hostilities were suspended in February, 1783, but more English 
than six months passed before the final treaty was signed. In cntiasm. 
the British Parliament the treaty and the ministry which 
made it were vigorously attacked, partly at least for factional 
reasons. Shelburne had to resign and a new ministry was 
formed by a curious alliance between the followers of Fox 



524 



REPUBLICAN DIPLOMACY, 1 779-1 784 



Last stages 
of the 
negotiations. 



The defini- 
tive treaty 
and its 
ratification. 



and North. So, after all, it was Fox who directed the ne- 
gotiations for the final treaty of peace. His agent in Paris 
was David Hartley, who had corresponded with Franklin 
during the war, and whose friendly feeling for the Americans 
now led him to propose concessions which would have cut 
deep into the old British commercial system. Fox himself 
was, of course, friendly to the Americans, and many of the 
London merchants were interested in plans for the reopen- 
ing of American trade. Unfortunately there were also 
strong interests on the other side, including the ship- 
owners and the merchants trading to the West Indies, who 
were afraid of American competition. So the hope of a 
commercial understanding came to nothing, and a great 
opportunity for promoting international good will was lost. 

It was not possible now to do more than incorporate the 
preliminary articles in the definitive treaty of peace, which 
was duly signed on September 3, 1783. Even yet the busi- 
ness was not completed, for the treaty had to be ratified 
by both governments, and it took a long time for the Con- 
gress to get a quorum for this purpose. Finally, however, in 
May, 1784, ratifications were exchanged in London and the 
work was done. 

It was nine years since the war began and nearly eight 
since the thirteen colonies first asserted their right to "assume 
among the powers of the earth" their "separate and equal 
station." Now this right had been formally recognized by 
the mother country and the American people were at last 
free to work out more adequately the diflScult problems of 
economic, political, and social reconstruction. 



General 
references. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, III, eh. XII. Fish, C, R., American 
Diplomacy, chs. IV, V. McLaughlin, A. C, Confederation and 
Constitution, chs. I, II. Winsor, America, VII, ch. II. Bancroft, 
United States, V, pt. V. chs. I-VII. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 525 

Hart, Contemporaries, II, ch. XXXV. Treaty in Macdonald, Collected 

sources 
Select Documents, no. 3. 

Morse, J. T., John Adams, chs. VIII-IX. Pellew, G., John American 

Jay, chs. VI-VIII. Various biographies of FranUin. negotiators. 

Adams, J., Diary in Works, III, 298-383. FrankUn, Writings Sources. 
(Smyth edition), VIII. Wharton, F., Revolutionary Diplomatic 
Correspondence, especially V, VI. 

Corwin, French Policy and the American Alliance. Phillips, Relations 

P. C, The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution with France 

. f ... . \ ''"" Spam. 

(University of Ilhnois, Studies). Winsor, J., Westward Move- The West. 

ment, ch. XII. 

Fitzmaurice, Shelburne, III, chs. Ill- VI. British 

policy. 



CHAPTER XXIV 
INDEPENDENT AMERICA 

The new era. In his "Farewell Orders" to the American armies, 
Washington expressed the mingled hope and anxiety with 
which thoughtful Americans looked forward to the new era 
of independence. There were indeed unique opportunities, 
"enlarged prospects of happiness," almost exceeding "the 
power of description." It seemed, not only to Americans 
but to liberal Europeans in England and on the Continent, 
that here, unfettered by the traditions of the Old World, there 
was a chance to work out a new kind of politics and a new 
social order for the enlightenment of mankind. The French 
economist, Turgot, spoke of American independence as the 
most important event since the discovery of the New World. 
"New-born Republics of America," he wrote, "I salute you 
as the hope of mankind, to which you open a refuge, and 
promise great and happy examples," 

Advice and But Washington had also his word of warning. In the 

"Farewell Orders" and elsewhere, he put the serious ques- 
tion, whether the American people would be equal to their 
great task. Independence was won but "unless the principles 
of the federal government were properly supported, and 
the powers of the Union increased, the honor, dignity, and 
justice of the nation would be lost forever." Nor was tlie 
possibility of failure overlooked by friends and enemies 
abroad. The same Turgot who greeted the new republics 
with so much enthusiasm felt also the seriousness of the 
issue. Fifty years from now the world would have learned 
"whether modern peoples can preserve republican consti- 

526 



TERRITORIAL PROBLEMS 527 

tutions, whether morals are compatible with the great prog- 
ress of civilization, and whether America is meant to improve 
or to aggravate the fate of humanity." Some Englishmen 
shared this sympathetic interest, as, for instance, Hartley, 
negotiator of the peace treaty, and Richard Price, one of the 
best-known political philosophers of his time, whose advice 
on American problems was welcomed by Franklin and 
John Adams. Other critics were not so friendly. Franklin 
complained that American prospects were disparaged in the 
British press, which was filled with "strange accounts of 
anarchy and confusion," and there was much skepticism in 
Europe about the permanence of this republican confedera- 
tion. It is easy to smile at these doubts, but they were not 
wholly unreasonable in view of the previous history of 
republics and federations. 

The territorial extent of the Union was a great permanent Resources 
asset, but it furnished also many serious problems. Much h;ms.^°Terri- 
of the territory allotted to the United States by the peace ^°^' 
treaty was not really brought under American control un- 
til the following decade. The British continued to hold British posts, 
posts beyond the line at Oswego, Niagara, Detroit, Mackinaw, 
Green Bay, and a few other points south of the Lakes. In 
western New York, in the present areas of Michigan and 
Wisconsin, and in a considerable stretch of territory across 
what is now northern Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, it was 
the British flag that counted most during the next decade. 
Farther south the situation was similarly confused. The 
handful of American citizens in Illinois looked across the 
Mississippi to a Spanish province. Whether that river 
should be an international waterway as well as a boundary claims, 
was a question still to be thrashed out with the Spaniards, 
who controlled not only the whole western bank but also 
the eastern side for more than two hundred miles from the 
Gulf. Spain also refused to accept the Anglo-American 
agreement fixing the southern boundary of the United 



528 INDEPENDENT AMERICA 

States at the thirty-first parallel. Whether this contention 
was right or wrong, the advantage of actual possession 
was with the Spaniards, who had a military post at Natchez 
well above that boundary and could block the passage of 
American ships to the Gulf. 
The Indians. The Indians also had to be considered; they had no pleni- 
potentiary at Paris, but they were still the chief occupants 
of the trans-Allegheny country. It was an interesting 
question which Aranda, the Spanish ambassador, put to Jay 
in August, 1782. "What right," he asked, had the Ameri- 
cans to "territories which manifestly belong to free and 
independent nations of Indians." The solution then pro- 
posed by the French secretary, Rayneval, was the recog- 
nition of Spanish, British, and American "spheres of 
influence," or protectorates. The British decided at that 
time in favor of the American rather than the Spanish 
contention, and by agreeing to surrender the western 
posts seemed to have committed themselves against the 
theory of a buffer territory under Indian sovereignty; but 
the notion was not quite dead. London and Montreal 
merchants interested in the fur trade of the Great Lakes 
region were not reconciled to the surrender of the western 
posts. Though they could not keep this article out of the 
definitive treaty, they did delay its execution. Unfor- 
tunately the American state legislatures played into the hands 
of this British group by violating other articles of the treaty, 
so providing an argument against the surrender of the posts. 
A large proportion of the northwestern Indians consequently 
remained under British influence and were encouraged to 
hold out against the claims of the United States, thus check- 
ing the progress of white occupation. In the southern section 
of the Ohio valley the settlements of Kentucky and Tennessee 
were now numerous enough to insure their permanence; but 
farther south the boundary dispute with Spain created an 
Indian problem much like that of the Northwest. 



STATE CLAIMS 529 

Interstate boundary questions also made trouble. At state 
the close of the Revolution congressional arbitration decided '^o^°^"^s. 
one such dispute by giving Pennsylvania jurisdiction 
over the Wyoming valley, which had been claimed by 
Connecticut. A similar dispute between New York and 
Massachusetts over the territory south of Lake Ontario 
was still undecided in 1783; Massachusetts did not give up 
her claim untU three years later. In New England Maine Embryo 
still belonged to Massachusetts, but the status of Vermont ^™hT' 
was uncertain; its new government was not yet recognized 
by Congress, and New York still claimed jurisdiction. In 
the south, Kentucky remained under the government of 
Virginia, and though the liberals of the mother state soon 
conceded Kentucky's claim to statehood, the terms of sep- 
aration were not so easily arranged. Feeling that in this 
period of uncertainty their interests were neglected, some of 
the frontier leaders were seriously discontented. North Car- 
olina also had an embryo commonwealth to deal with in 
the Tennessee country, where an attempt was made to form 
the new state of Franklin; it failed, however, to get con- 
gressional approval and the authority of North Carolina 
was reestablished. 

As to the rest of the western country, north of the Ohio State claims 
and south of Tennessee, there were differences of another lands, 
sort. Should the sea-to-sea charters of Virginia, Massa- 
chusetts, and the rest be recognized as still valid, or should 
this territory be treated as a federal domain? Some of the 
states were not ready to give up without a struggle. Virginia, 
for instance, reasserted her charter claims in the constitution 
of 1776, and after Clark's expedition to Kaskaskia she 
organized a large part of the "old Northwest" into the 
''county of Illinois." The American arguments at the 
peace conference also assumed the validity of the old charters. 
On the other hand there were strong argiunents against these 
state claims. For one thing, they conflicted with each other. 



cessions. 



530 INDEPENDENT AMERICA 

Against the vague "west and northwest" clause of the Vir- 
ginia charter there were overlapping claims of Massachu- 
setts and Connecticut, not to mention the pretensions of New 
York, based on its alleged suzerainty over the Iroquois and 
their western tributaries. Furthermore, states which had 
no western claims thought it quite unfair that territory won 
by the common efforts of thirteen commonwealths should 
be monopolized by a bare majority of them. On this ground 
Maryland stubbornly refused to ratify the Articles of Con- 
federation until convinced that Virginia would give up her 
jurisdiction, at least north of the Ohio. 

State In 1780 Congress urged the states to surrender their 

western claims, agreeing, if that were done, to hold the ter- 
ritory for the common benefit of all, with the understanding 
that out of it new states should be developed. In 1781 New 
York cleared the way by transferring to Congress her shad- 
owy Iroquois title. Virginia, after some controversy about 
details, gave in 1784 a formal deed of cession covering the 
territory northwest of the Ohio, and during the next three 
years Massachusetts and Connecticut followed suit. By 
1787, federal jurisdiction was established over the whole 
''Northwest" except the "Connecticut Reserve" in north- 
ern Ohio. South of the Ohio the state claims were still kept 
up until after 1789, except for a narrow strip ceded by South 
Carolina in 1787. 

Physical Making all possible allowance for disputed boundaries, 

the new republic was already more fortunate in physical 
endowment than any European nation. Its territory was 
many times greater than that of any except Russia, and the 
enormous extent of that empire was offset by the long water 
frontage of the United States on a temperate ocean, giving 
facilities for international commerce quite beyond the dreams 
of the most hopeful Russian patriot. Without being fanciful 
the comparison may be carried a little farther. Neither 
people had more than scratched the surface of their great 



resources. 




Faciiitf530 



POPULATION 531 

landed inheritance and both had great opportunities for 
colonization over contiguous territory, with only moderate 
mountain barriers to delay their progress. Probably no 
American of that day appreciated the economic resources 
of his country better than Washington. In a letter to a 
French friend he told of a recent tour in the back coun- 
try, dwelling with special enthusiasm on " the vast inland 
navigation of these United States." 

Within this "new empire," as Washington called it. Population, 
there were probably about three million people, not count- 
ing the Indian tribes. After the war, immigration set in on 
a large scale and by 1790 the population had risen to about 
four million. All estimates for this period, even the first 
federal census, are quite imperfect; but it is probable that 
the American population was at least doubled in the 
quarter century which followed the passage of the Stamp 
Act. Even then, there were fewer Americans ^in the whole 
country than are now living in the city of New York alone. 

Somewhat less than half these people lived in the states Distribution 
from Maryland southward and the northerners were about ^L^^"' 
equally divided between New England and the middle 
group, though the latter soon forged ahead. If, however, 
the whites only are counted, the two northern sections 
would outnumber the South nearly two to one. We can 
only make rough guesses about the distribution of popu- 
lation between East and West, partly because there was not 
then and is not now any agreement as to the meaning of 
those terms. If we classify as eastern all the people living 
within the present limits of the original thirteen states, the 
westerners would scarcely exceed one in thirty. If we take 
the crest of the Appalachian watershed as the dividing line, 
even this would probably leave nineteen twentieths of the 
American people on the eastern side. If, however, we in- 
clude also the hill-country farmers from New England south- 
ward to Georgia who were still struggling with frontier 



532 INDEPENDENT AMERICA 

problems, we get several hundred thousand more Western- 
ers, — still a small minority but a vigorous and rapidly ex- 
panding one. Even the oldest colonies had plenty of elbow 
room. The entire population of the four middle states in 
1783 was probably about one eighth of the number now living 
peopf^ within the continuous urban area of which the city of New 

York is the center. The largest city in the country was 
Philadelphia, with something over 30,000 inhabitants. In 
1790, the number of people living under urban conditions 
as now defined by the Bureau of the Census was less than 
one in thirty. 
Radal The constituent elements of the American people did 

e emen . ^^^ change much during the three decades from 1760 to 1790. 
The English stock still largely outnumbered all the others in 
New England and in the southern tidewater. New immi- 
gration strengthened the Irish, Scotch-Irish, and German 
elements; but the growth of the German element was offset 
by the steady assimilation of older non-English elements, 
especially the Dutch, with their English neighbors. Such 
representative New Yorkers as John Jay and Gouverneur 
Morris represented the mingling of French blood with Dutch 
and English, but their social outlook was not essentially 
different from that of men whose descent was wholly English. 
The Many of the older German immigrants retained their 

element. distinctive traditions and their community life; and in this 
respect their churches exerted a strong conservative influence. 
Their language persisted not only in common speech but 
also in their own press. Yet they too were beginning to share 
in the more general interests of their adopted country. While 
mercenaries from Brunswick and Hesse fought on the British 
side, sturdy German colonials like Herkimer and his Mohawk 
valley neighbors played their part in the winning of inde- 
pendence. In the decade following the Revolution, some of 
the Germans held positions of leadership in state and federal 
politics. Frederick Muhlenberg, son of the famous Lutheran 



RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ELEMENTS 533 

pioneer, served successively as speaker of the Pennsylvania 
assembly, president of the state convention which ratified 
the Federal Constitution, and finally as the first Speaker of 
the United States House of Representatives, 

When all is said, however, there were comparatively few Predomi- 
of the governing class whose ancestry was not traceable to Eng^Lh- 
some part of the British Isles. The signers of tlie great speakmg 
historic documents of this period — the Declaration of In- 
dependence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Consti- 
tution of 1787 — were nearly all of English, Scotch, or Irish 
descent. 

Religious distinctions were not yet negligible. The Angli- Religicai. 
can (or Episcopal) Church suffered most from the Revolution, 
because of its connection with the British government and the 
strength of the loyalist element among its members. Even 
after the first American bishopric was established in Con- 
necticut, the prejudice against that church persisted, espe- 
cially in New England. In Virginia there were sharp 
conflicts between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, though 
at times conservatives in both groups combined against 
more radical elements like the Baptists and the "New 
Lights." Most Americans who made any religious pro- 
fession at all called themselves Christians and Protestants; 
the only state in which Catholics were influential was 
Maryland. Even the Episcopalians decided to call their 
church "Protestant Episcopal." This Protestant feeling 
showed itself in several of the early state constitutions, 
which excluded Catholics from certain ofi&ces. On the whole, 
however, religious partisanship counted much less in politics 
than it had in colonial days. 

Compared with Europe, American society seemed to Social dia- 
most observers distinctly democratic; but there was one slavery.' 
class distinction more radical than any then existing in 
western or central Europe. That was the distinction between 
white masters and their black slaves. This servile class 



534 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



No formal 
aristocracy. 



Persistence 
of other 
social dis- 
tinctions. 



not only furnished the South with most of its unskilled labor 
but formed about one fifth of the whole American population. 
Though tending to disappear in the North, slavery was so 
deeply involved in the social structure of the South that even 
men like Jefferson, who hated the institution, emphasized the 
diflSculty of blacks and whites living together on any other 
basis. Nevertheless, the border states of Virginia and 
Maryland were beginning to realize the economic disad- 
vantages of slavery, and by 1783 both governments had 
prohibited the importation of negro slaves. 

Other class distinctions were much less serious. A few 
titled personages had lived in America, but most of them con- 
sidered the old country as their permanent home. Attempts 
to organize an American nobility had broken down; a few 
Americans had been knighted for special services, as, for 
instance, Sir William Pepperell of Massachusetts and Sir 
William Johnson of New York, but these were rare exceptions. 
Formal aristocracy quickly disappeared from American life. 
Titles of nobility were condemned in several of the early 
state constitutions and the feeling was so strong that the 
association of Revolutionary oflScers known as the Cincin- 
nati was sharply attacked because the privilege of member- 
ship was made hereditary. It is true that independent 
America had not quite forgotten the distinction between 
"gentle" and "simple." The Pinckneys of South Carolina, 
the Randolphs of Virginia, and the Livingstons of New 
York were still looked up to by their fellow citizens. The 
older American gentry was considerably weakened by the 
Revolution, but many of the "new men" who came to the 
front gained a similar prestige. In Virginia, Washington 
and Jefferson enjoyed on their landed estates a kind of life 
not unlike that of well-to-do English country gentlemen. 
Pennsylvania had in John Dickinson a good example of the 
rich "gentleman-farmer" who could afford the luxury of a 
town house, and in Robert Morris an equally notable 



ECONOMIC CLASSES 535 

example of the merchant prince. John Adams, no longer 
quite so insurgent as in his early days, believed that the 
"well born" should have some recognition even in a repub- 
lic. The essential fact, however, is that such class distinc- 
tions were, even in the older settlements, far less rigid than 
in Europe. The aristocracy of an undeveloped country is 
one which almost any man of force may hope to enter. 
The French writer, Segur, describing society in Rhode Is- 
land during the war, said that he had seen nowhere "a 
more complete mingling of persons of all classes, between 
whom an equal decency allowed no untoward difference to 
be seen." 

The small farmers, who formed the largest single element The small 
in American society, had not changed radically since colo- 
nial times. Though much better off than the typical European 
peasant, their intellectual outlook, as well as their commercial 
intercourse, was much restricted. Their supply of ready 
money was small and they complained that too much of 
it went to the commercial and creditor class. They believed 
with some justice that taxes were inequitably levied; also 
that if lawyers were fewer and paper money plentiful, a more 
equitable distribution of wealth might be secured. In some 
of these demands the farmers were supported by the small 
shopkeepers of the towns. 

Leaving the negroes out of account, the landless laboring Labor and 
class was much smaller than it now is. At its lower level ^^^^ ' 
were the white indentured servants, or redemptioners, who 
were still imported from abroad and could still be bought 
and sold. A little higher in the scale were the hired men on 
the northern farms, the free servants in well-to-do house- 
holds, and some of the poorer mechanics. Such people 
commonly did not have the right to vote and the labor 
unions now so powerful had not as yet developed for their 
protection. Even in these groups, however, extreme poverty 
was comparatively rare. Food was abundant and cheap, 



536 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



Sectionalism. 



New England 
after the 
Revolution. 



Commercial 
problems. 



and the chance of free or practically free land on the frontier 
tended to pull wages up. Americans like Franklin and Jay, 
returning from long periods of absence abroad, were im- 
pressed by the high cost of labor. In a few of the larger 
towns the mechanics were beginning to make a stir in 
politics, as in Philadelphia, where they combined with the 
back-country farmers against the old ruling class. 

Sectionahsm played an even larger part in the early days 
of the American Union than it now does. There were con- 
flicts of interests between groups of states, between sections 
within a given state, and between sectional areas which cut 
across state boundaries. All these divisions were accent- 
uated by difficulties of communication. It took more time 
and trouble to go from Boston to New York in 1783 than it 
now takes to go from either to San Francisco. Exchanges 
of information now possible in a few minutes by telephone 
often took many days. Slow and expensive transportation 
produced great differences in price levels, which were aggra- 
vated by the failure of the Confederation to provide a stand- 
ard coinage, so that different localities had different rates 
of exchange for English shillings and Spanish dollars. 

New England was still the most closely knit of all tlie 
sections, with definite common traditions in manners, 
politics, and religion. Its most characteristic economic 
activities were, as in colonial times, connected with tlie sea. 
New England's interest in the northern fisheries had been 
guarded in the treaty of 1783; but there was some anxiety 
about the foreign markets, in which a large part of each 
season's catch had formerly been sold. Royal orders closed 
the British West Indies to American fish, and Yankee ships 
in the Mediterranean were no longer protected by the Brit- 
ish navy against the Barbary pirates. The fisheries and the 
shipping interest suffered from the uncertainties of this 
period of readjustment. Under the English Navigation Acts 
New England vessels were now foreign, and though some 



trade. 



NEW ENGLAND COMMERCE 537 

new lines of foreign trade were opened up during the war, 
Frenchmen and Spaniards were about as reluctant as the 
English to relax their old commercial systems. Imports 
from England came in freely, so freely, indeed, as to overload 
the market; but the export trade was thrown out of gear. 
So, after a period of abnormal war risks, v/ith correspond- 
ingly high prices, New Englanders whose capital was in- 
vested in shipping and foreign commerce were for a time 
much depressed. 

It was not long, however, before Yankee ingenuity found Revival of 
new opportunities. The open ports of the Danish and Dutch 
West Indies furnished one way of evading British colonial 
regulations; the use of fraudulent British papers was another. 
The French made some concessions in their islands, which 
helped the American export trade in lumber and bread- 
stuffs. During this decade came also the modest beginnings 
of New England commerce with China, and before long the 
American share in the Canton trade was second only to 
that of the British. In 1789 four ships belonging to a single 
Salem family were at that port at one time. Still, as in 
colonial times, important branches of foreign trade were 
carried on not only from Boston but from minor ports like 
Newport and Salem. Newport business men were getting 
letters from English correspondents looking toward the re- 
vival of old business relations. One such correspondent in 
Manchester presented an ante-bellum bill for payment and 
invited orders for British manufactures. There were Irish 
merchants, too, who hoped for some New England business 
and were ready with advice. One of them suggested that 
the "general run of New England rum" was too "weak 
and ill-flavored for this market." Other places in which 
Newport merchants then had correspondents were Portu- 
gal, Hamburg, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian 
countries. 

The interruption of trade during the earlier years of 



538 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



Home 
manufac- 
tures. 



Agricultural 
and com- 
mercial 
interests. 



New York. 



Commerce. 



the Revolution stimulated home manufactures; but peace 
brought back the old trade with the mother country before 
they could compete effectively with British goods. Though 
New Englanders followed with interest recent improvements 
in the British textile industry, the development of such 
manufactures in New England, except of a rudimentary 
kind and for a limited market, had to wait until the next 
generation. More New Englanders were still engaged in 
farming than in any other single occupation, and when well 
organized the farmers could outvote the merchants. Even 
in a small area like Rhode Island, the rural population 
dominated politics for a large part of this period. Never- 
theless, New England was generally thought of as the dis- 
tinctively commercial section of the country. Politically, 
also, the commercial interest, supported by the professional 
classes, had an influence out of all proportion to its num- 
bers and was usually able to speak for New England in the 
councils of the Union. 

In New York, the conflict of commercial and agricul- 
tural interests was complicated by the bitter antagonism, 
between the Whigs who came back to the city at the end of 
the British occupation and their Tory neighbors who had 
remained at home. For several years, the city of New York 
had been cut off from other parts of the Union; it had also 
suffered from extensive fires, and the uncertainties of the 
time delayed the work of restoration. These disadvantages, 
however, were only temporary and could not long prevent 
the city from exploiting its position as the market and outlet 
not only for up-state New York but for much of Connecti- 
cut and New Jersey as well. In fact, the New York legis- 
lature sometimes took unfair advantage of this situation 
by levying duties on the trade of its neighbors. In the 
export trade of New York, furs had lost much of their former 
importance, partly because British occupation of the Lake 
posts, including Oswego, discouraged the American traders. 



NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA 539 

Naturally the merchants were all the more anxious for the 
reopening of the West Indian trade. 

The landed interest was relatively more important in The landed 
New York than in New England, and for several years "^^^^^** 
such leaders as Governor Clinton kept themselves in power 
by skillful appeals to the rural voters against the moneyed 
interests of the city of New York. In opposition to John Jay, 
and later Alexander Hamilton, the up-state political machine 
went in for paper money and for shifting taxation as far as 
possible from land to commerce, by means of customs duties. 
Naturally the New Yorkers were not anxious to see this 
revenue transferred from the state to the federal government. 

In Pennsylvania there was a similar balancing of rural Pennsyl- 
and commercial interests. Philadelphia was the chief financial Philadelphia 
center in the country and the great merchants of that city merchants. 
were important factors in the national life, notably Robert 
Morris, the most conspicuous representative in his day of 
"big business" in politics. Genuinely patriotic, he was also 
deeply involved in speculative enterprises of every kind — 
trade with the East Indies, the development of iron 
manufactures, and investments in western lands. In Phila- 
delphia, as in Boston, trade suffered from international 
complications. One merchant wrote in 1783 to a Newport 
correspondent that till a commercial treaty could be made 
with England, it was impossible to tell "what to carry or 
where to go." Meantime, however, the European demand 
for American foodstuffs was growing and much of it was 
supplied by the Pennsylvanians, who, like the New Eng- 
enders, were finding back doors to the British West Indies. 
By 1786, Franklin could write optimistically about business 
conditions in Philadelphia. Improved real estate had trebled 
in value since the Revolution, new buildings were going up 
fast, and European goods could be had on easy terms. 

The Philadelphia magnates had, however, to reckon with Democratic 
strong opposition elements. They could count generally ^°^^^^' 



SAO 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



East and 
West. 



Growth of 
Baltimore. 



Virginia 
planters and 
farmers. 



Ec»nomic 
diflSoilties. 



on the older and wealthier landowning communities; but 
in the city itself a radical democracy was taking shape. 
The old antagonism between the eastern and western sec- 
tions, which had been so important a factor in the Revolu- 
tion, was very much alive. The up-country farmers 
counted for more than in colonial days; but they were 
scattered over a wider area and it was hard for them to 
organize against the more compact communities of the East. 
It is worth noting, for instance, that all the Pennsylvania 
delegates to the Federal Convention of 1787 were chosen 
from Philadelphia. 

In the Chesapeake country the growth of Baltimore was 
striking. Though far behmd Philadelphia, New York, and 
Boston, it had already a merchant class of some importance, 
buying and selling the products of Maryland and the neighbor- 
ing states. The tobacco trade went on about as in colonial 
times, with the planters selling to British merchants or to 
"factors" on tliis side of the water. Jefferson pointed out, 
in his Notes on Virginia, that the planters still had trade 
brought up the rivers to their "doors," with the result that 
Virginia even now had "no towns of any consequence," 
though he had some hope of Norfolk's becoming the "em- 
porium" for Chesapeake Bay. On the odier hand, Jefferson 
was pleased to note that wheat production was rapidly 
gaining on tobacco; the latter, with its impoverishment of 
the soil, seemed to him a "culture productive of infinite 
wretchedness." With this decline in tobacco cultivation 
went other important changes: the shifting of power from 
the tidewater to the interior and growing doubts about the 
efficiency of slave labor. 

During the later years of the war the Virginians suffered 
considerably from hostile armies and their old dependence 
on English shipping made the interruption of trade with 
the mother country more inconvenient than it was for most 
of the northerners. Here also there was some attempt to 



CONDITIONS IN THE SOUTH 541 

develop home manufactures; but Jefferson thought his 
fellow citizens would go back as soon as they could to the 
business of exchanging raw materials "for finer manufactures 
than they are able to execute themselves." Meantime, the 
planters were burdened with debts and therefore reluctant 
to carry out the clause of the peace treaty regarding the 
rights of British creditors. For similar reasons there was a 
good deal of paper-money sentiment, though not enough to 
overcome the opposition of tlie more conservative leaders. 

In both the Chesapeake colonies there was consider- internal im- 
able interest in constructive projects. Both wanted a better P''^^^™^'^ ^• 
regulation of trade on the Potomac and in the Bay; there was 
also a strong movement for cooperation in the improvement 
of interior waterways, especially for the purpose of develop- 
ing trade with the West. By canals and the removal of 
obstructions, the James and the Potomac might be connected 
with the Ohio, and Virginia thus enabled to compete more 
effectively with Pennsylvania. Washington and other prom- 
inent Virginians who held western lands naturally had a spe- 
cial interest in such plans. The North Carolinians also were North 
deeply interested in the development of the West, whether 
as land speculators, like Richard Henderson, the founder of 
Kentucky, or as trail makers and pioneers. 

In South Carolina political power was still held by the South 
rice and indigo planters in combination with the leading Georgia. 
Charleston merchants. The conspicuous people in this state 
were generally great planters, or lawyers with large planta- 
tion interests. Much Charleston money was, however, 
invested in foreign commerce. While the Virginians were 
becoming dubious about slavery. South Carolina believed 
that economic salvation depended upon continuing that 
system. The older settlements of Georgia resembled those 
of South Carolina; but the most striking characteristic of 
this frontier state during the next few decades was its 
potential wealth in unoccupied lands. 



542 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



Westward 
expansion. 
New Eng- 
land's part 
in the 
movement.. 



Ohio valley 
pioneers. 



Movement 
along the 
southern 
rivers. 



This survey of the sections would be quite incomplete 
without some account of the people who were laying the 
foundations of new commonwealths in the West. So far as 
the trans-Allegheny region was concerned, the part taken 
by New Englanders in this movement was negligible. New 
England's pioneering was at that time mainly "down East," 
in Maine, or in Vermont, which was then growing rapidly. 
According to the census of 1790, Vermont ranked higher in 
population than tliree of the original thirteen states. ^ These 
new settlements were less compact than those of seventeenth- 
century New England and somewhat more democratic; yet 
they reproduced to a considerable extent the Puritan spirit of 
tlie Massachusetts and Connecticut towns from which the 
founders came. As in earlier times, some New Englanders 
migrated to other sections. Before the Wyoming valley 
dispute was settled in favor of Pennsylvania, a few Con- 
necticut people moved into that region. Disappointed in 
the outcome of that controversy, Connecticut began to 
plan seriously for the exploitation of its charter claims in 
northern Ohio. During this period pioneer settlements were 
made by New Englanders in central and western New York, 
and a few adventurous spirits began to think of the Ohio 
country. 

The real pioneers of the Ohio valley, however, were not 
the New Englanders, but the men who pushed tlirough the 
Appalachian passes from Pennsylvania southward. The 
most common northern route to the valley then ran from 
Philadelphia through the old German town of Lancaster 
and across the mountains to Pittsburgh. Every spring and 
summer a great stream of colonists made their way along 
this road and then floated down the river on flatboats. 

Even more important at first was the movement which 
followed the great southern tributaries of the Ohio. The 
Monongahela and Kanawha furnished convenient approaches 
from Virginia. Farther south, where the present states of 



BEYOND THE ALLEGHENIES 543 

Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee come The Ten- 
together, are the sources of the Cumberland and the Ten- ^^^^^^ ^^^^^* 
nessee. The latter, rising among the Virginia mountains, 
flows southwestwardly across Tennessee into northern 
Alabama and Mississippi; here it takes a sharp turn to the 
northwest, flowing across Tennessee again and through 
Kentucky into the Ohio. To-day a steamboat can make its 
way up the Tennessee as far as Alabama with less risk of 
grounding than on the Mississippi between St. Louis and 
Cairo. For the flatboats and other small craft used by 
the pioneers, the upper reaches of the river were also nav- 
igable, though the diflficulties were great, including not 
only rapids and snags, but also the possibility of Indian 
attacks. 

On the upper courses of these southern rivers were 
planted the first settlements of West Virginia and eastern 
Tennessee; later and more adventurous pioneers went on to 
lonely outposts still farther west. The early settlers of 
Nashville, for instance, followed the Tennessee to the Ohio, 
the Ohio to the Cumberland and up that river to the site of 
the present city. Until 1789 most of these Ohio valley 
settlements were in Kentucky and Tennessee. North of the 
Ohio there were only a few Anglo-American pioneers inter- 
spersed among the old French settlements, at such widely 
scattered points as Vincennes and Kaskaskia. 

Many of these frontier people were still chiefly occupied Problems of 
with hunting and Indian trading; but there were farmers, too, 
with surplus products to exchange for clothing, household 
goods, and tools. Since it was difficult for these frontier 
farmers to move their wheat, flour, and pork up the rivers 
to the East, they were deeply interested in getting an outlet The Mis- 
through the Mississippi to the Gulf. Unfortunately Spain's questfon. 
exclusive policy interfered with this movement of trade. 
Now and then river cargoes were held up by Spanish 
officials, and impatient frontiersmen, like George Rogers 



544 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



Character- 
istics of the 
western 
settlers. 



Clark, were ready to retaliate without waiting for Congress 
to act. 

Not all Americans were sympathetic toward this colo- 
nization of the West. John Jay, for instance, feared it would 
not be easy to manage the western people and doubted 
whether they would be "fit to govern themselves" even 
"after two or three generations." Even Washington thought 
the western movement might go too fast and that it would 
be better to fill in first the region adjoining the old colonies. 
In general, however, the South was more sympathetic than 
the northeastern states. 

Generalizations about the western people have always 
been popular and usually one-sided. Eastern contempora- 
ries often overemphasized the lawless and even vicious char- 
acters who found their way to the border country. On the 
other hand, many writers, including some able students of 
western history, tend to idealize the frontiersmen and assume 
that they represented a natural selection of the most vigorous 
people in the older settlements, leaving behind men of less 
force and initiative. As a matter of fact, many kinds of 
people were represented among the western settlers as well 
as among those who remained at home. Some of those who 
felt the fascination of the wilderness were fine types of self- 
reliant manhood, like Daniel Boone, the pathfinder of Ken- 
tucky. Others slipped into savage ways and became much 
like the Indians with whom they fought or trafiicked. Most 
of the pioneers, however, were plain, practical people, who, 
were tired of working for wages or making a meager living 
out of poor land and were attracted by the free lands of the 
West. The moneyed class also had a part in the movement, 
sometimes as land speculators, sometimes by furnishing 
colonists with the necessary capital. Now and then such 
men went with their capital to the new country. 

The attractive qualities of the frontiersmen were their 
courage, the self-reliance and resourcefulness called out by the 



RELIGION IN THE WEST 545 

isolated life of the wilderness, and the democratic spirit which 
developed as men got away from the inherited distinctions 
of an older society. There were losses, however, as well as 
gains. As Jay said, somewhat stiffly, the "progress of civi- 
lization and the means of information" were "very tardy" 
in "separate settlements." With boundless resources to 
draw upon, the pioneers naturally used them wastefully 
and established habits which a later generation, forced 
to conserve its resources, cannot easily shake off. 

The older colonial churches had comparatively little Religion ia 
influence in the early development of the trans-Allegheny * ^ *' 
region. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterian clergy tried to care 
for their own people, who formed a large proportion of the 
western pioneers. But in this sparsely settled region it was 
hard to form churches and give them educated ministers. 
This left a wide field for service, in which important work was 
soon being done by two comparatively new churches, the 
Baptists and the Methodists. Their traveling preachers laid 
little stress on the formalities of worship, but their zeal made 
a deep impression. The Methodists, in particular, were soon 
able to conserve the results of this emotional preaching by an 
effective central organization, especially well adapted to 
the work of an expanding church. The field was too vast, 
however, for the forces then available and large populations 
grew up with an absence of educational and religious oppor- 
tunities w^hich scandalized the home missionaries of the 
next generation. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, oh. I. General 
Channing, United States, III, 408-427. CaUender, Selections ^"'^^y- 
from the Economic History of the U. S., iGS-iyj. Weeden, W. B., Econoinic 
New England, chs. XXII, XXIII. Morison, S. E., Maritime 
History of Massachusetts, chs. Ill, IV. 



546 



INDEPENDENT AMERICA 



Expansion 
and the 
West. 



Sources. 



Semple, E. C, American History and Its Geographic Conditions, 
ch. V. Henderson, Conquest of the Old Southwest, ch. XIX. Hul- 
bert, A. B., Washington and the West. Matthews, L, K., Ex- 
pansion of New England. Turner, Western State Making in the 
American Revolution, II (Am. Hist. Review, I, 251-269). 

Writings of Washington (Ford edition, X), Franklin, and 
Jefferson (including his Notes on Virginia). Chastellux, J. F. de, 
Travels in North America (1780-1782). Schoepf, J. D., Travels in 
the Confederation (translated by Morrison). Quotations from 
French visitors in Jusserand, With Americans of Past and Present 
Days, and in Sherrill, C. H., French Memories of Eighteenth 
Century America. Hart and Channing, American Historical Leaf- 
lets, no. 22 (State land claims and cessions). 

See also references for ch. XXVI. 



CHAPTER XXV 
REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 

The American commonwealths began their independent Constitution 
existence with great natural resources; but their prosperous {^^ states! 
development still depended in part on the kind of political 
institutions they could establish to replace the old colonial 
system. In the storm and stress of the Revolution, one 
state after another expressed its ideals and tried to pro- 
vide for its own special needs by the adoption of a state 
constitution. Imperfect as these early experiments in self- 
government were, they were notable contributions to the 
attention and art of politics. As such they attracted science 
abroad, especially in France, where they were translated 
and widely read. 

The new state constitutions began with the principle Methods of 
that all just governments rest on the consent of the governed 
and that the permanent will of the people should be ex-pressed 
in a fundamental written law. These constitutions were 
adopted in various ways, sometimes as in Virginia by a 
revolutionary assembly originally chosen for a very different 
purpose. In 1780, however, Massachusetts inaugurated sub- 
stantially the method now prevaihng of having the constitu- 
tion framed by a convention chosen for that specific purpose 
by the voters themselves, to whom it was submitted for their 
approval. These constitutions generally took for granted Unconstitu- 
certain fundamental rights which could not be abridged or lation and 
taken away even by the lawmaking power. In colonial times ^^^ courts. 
Americans had been accustomed to having acts of their as- 
semblies annulled ^by the English Privy Council on the 

547 



548 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



Suffrage 
qualifica- 
tions. 



Republican 
ideals. 



ground that they were contrary to their charters, or to the 
principles of common law. Now the new state courts began 
to exercise a similar authority. In the New Jersey case of 
Holmes v. Walton, the judges declared an act of the legis- 
lature null and void because it authorized a jury of less than 
twelve men to try certain criminal cases. There were some 
protests against such action; but by 1787 the principle that 
judges might declare laws invalid seemed to be supported 
by the best legal opinion. 

Nearly everybody agreed that ultimate sovereignty 
rested with the people; but just who were the "people" in 
the political meaning of that term? In this respect the first 
state constitutions were conservative. The Virginia Decla- 
ration of Rights declared that all men should vote who could 
offer "sufiicient evidence of permanent common interest 
with, and attachment to, the community "; but the old prop- 
erty qualifications were retained and Jefferson declared that 
this meant the disfranchisement of more than half the men 
who paid taxes or were enrolled in the state militia. With 
variations in detail, the precedent set by Virginia was followed 
by the other states. Even with these restrictions, however, 
the American system entrusted political power to a much 
larger proportion of the population than was thought de- 
sirable in any European country. 

Though not strictly democratic from a twentieth- 
century point of view, the constitution makers of that day 
were committed to republican ideals and against any kind 
of hereditary rule. In Virginia, for instance, the most con- 
servative leaders did not apparently propose anything more 
monarchical than a governor serving during good behavior, 
and even that does not seem to have been seriously con- 
sidered. The whole structure of American society was 
against the hereditary principle. Besides, many Americans 
were familiar with repubUcan theories, especially those of 
seventeenth century English Puritans; in two of the 



STATE CONSTITUTIONS 549 

chartered colonies, they had seen practically republican 
governments at work. 

Notwithstanding their rejection of the hereditary prin- Sources of 
ciple, the American constitutions were much influenced by theory^' 
EngUsh and colonial theory, though sometimes mistaken 
in their interpretation of the former. Following the French 
writer, Montesquieu, in his interpretation of the English 
system, Americans accepted the theory of the separation "Separa- 
of powers, or "checks and balances," This required the J^wers." 
differentiation of three departments of government: the 
legislative, to make the laws; the executive, to enforce 
them; and the judiciary, to apply them in individual dis- 
putes. These three departments were perfectly familiar, 
both in English practice and in the American colonial govern- 
ments. It was, therefore, primarily a question of how to 
get a better balance between the executive, on the one side, 
and the legislature and the judiciary on the other. 

Quite in accordance with English and colonial precedents, state 
all the new legislatures except that of Pennsylvania con- bicameral' 
sisted of two houses. It was believed that bills would be system. 
more carefully considered under this plan than if one assem- 
bly were given full power, and many thought an upper house 
was needed to protect property rights against radical 
legislation. On this theory senators sometimes had to have 
higher property qualifications than were required of repre- 
sentatives; in New York and North Carolina they were 
chosen by a more limited group of voters. Efforts were Problems of 
made to secure a fairer representation of districts and ment^'*^'^' 
sections than had existed before the Revolution. John 
Adams believed that the assembly should be "in miniature 
an exact portrait of the people at large" and in the Massa- 
chusetts lower house representation was in fair proportion to 
population; but the senate appointment was based on 
property. Elsewhere too the results were unsatisfactory, and 
Jefferson complained that the Virginia apportionment was 



SSO REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 

decidedly unfair. In 1782, he calculated that the tidewater 
districts had seventy-one members of the lower house as 
against forty-six for the piedmont area with substantially 
the same number of fighting men. 
The question To secure a more complete separation of powers, the 
power, executive functions of the old provincial councils were given 

not to the senate but to a distinct executive council. On the 
question of giving the governor a veto there was a decided 
difference of opinion. The Virginia constitution rejected the 
idea, and this example was followed by most of the other 
states. It was a natural result of popular feeling against the 
abuse of this power by the royal governors; but cautious 
thinkers like John Adams thought the executive needed some 
such protection against encroachments by the legislature. In 
1780 Massachusetts worked out a compromise, giving the 
governor a suspensive veto which could be overruled by a two- 
thirds majority in both houses of the legislature. New York 
tried the experiment of giving this power to a council of 
revision consisting of the governor and a group of judges. 
This latter plan was popular for a time and as late as 1818 
was incorporated in the constitution of IlUnois; but the 
Massachusetts idea has finally prevailed in nearly all the 
states, as well as in the federal Constitution. 
Extent of Notwithstanding the theory that the legislature was bound 

power. Bills by a fundamental law, specific limitations on its power were 
of rights. largely confined to the so-called "bill of rights," which was 
chiefly designed to prevent arbitrary interference with in- 
dividual liberty. These rights were largely drawn from 
English sources, but some ideas like freedom of the press 
and religious liberty were more fully developed. Except for 
these safeguards, the powers of the legislature were broadly 
stated. The long list of things which a twentieth-century 
legislature is forbidden to do was conspicuously absent. 
Weak The executive, on the other hand, was treated with great 

suspicion. Pennsylvania preferred to have no governor at 



executives. 



STATE CONSTITUTIONS 55 1 

all, but only an executive board. In New England governors 
were chosen annually by the qualified voters, and in New 
York the election was intrusted to a select group of large 
freeholders; elsewhere the governor was chosen by the legis- 
lature and usually for one year only. Jefferson was not an 
ardent believer in one-man power; but even he objected 
to this excessive dependence of the executive on the legis- 
lature. Jealousy of the governor showed itself also in other 
ways. In Virginia, for instance, he could not adjourn or 
prorogue the legislature as the royal governors had done; 
the appointment of judges and other important officers was 
taken from him; and he could not establish his authority 
in any matter " by virtue of any law, statute, or custom 
of England." The executive council, already mentioned, 
also limited the governor's power. 

There was a general desire to make the judiciary more An inde- 
independent than in colonial times, and in a majority jlTSdary. 
of the states judges were appointed to serve during good 
behavior; two other constitutions fixed terms of five and 
seven years. In Massachusetts the judges were chosen by 
the executive, but in several states this power was given to 
the legislature. Direct choice by the people was not approved 
anywhere. 

These changes in the mechanism of government did not Religious 
satisfy the radicals, who valued them largely as means to *^^^^" 
the establishment of a freer and more democratic society. 
In the matter of religious liberty, for example, great progress 
had been made; but liberals like Franklin and Jefferson 
believed there was still much to be done. Religious discrim- 
ination of one kind or another was quite general. In Massa- 
chusetts, for instance, the governor had to declare himself 
a supporter of the Christian religion, and though every 
citizen could claim the right to worship God in the way 
"most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience," 
another clause promising equal protection under the law was 



552 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



Church 
and state, 
relations. 



Separation 
of church 
and state 
in Virginia. 



apparently limited to Christian denominations. Massa- 
chusetts practically excluded Catholics by requiring every 
officeholder to declare on oath that no "foreign prince, 
person, prelate, state, or potentate" had any authority "in 
any matter civil, ecclesiastical, or spiritual, within this 
commonwealth." In New York, a similar oath was required 
for naturalization. In several other states Catholics were 
specifically excluded from office. Even in Pennsylvania, 
Franklin had to apologize for a clause in the constitu- 
tion requiring legislators to declare their belief in the divine 
inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. 

The Revolution did not at once do away witli state 
churches, whether in New England or in Virginia. The 
Massachusetts constitution declared that each town must be 
required by law to support "public Protestant teachers of 
piety, religion, and morality." Individuals might be com- 
pelled to attend religious services, if there were any which 
they could "conscientiously and conveniently attend," and 
to pay taxes for the support of some kind of Protestant 
service. Though some concessions were made to Baptists and 
other dissenters from the Congregational system, complete 
separation of church and state did not come either in Massa- 
chusetts or Connecticut until the nineteenth century. The 
change came more easily in Virginia, because the Anglican 
establishment had depended partly on the support of the 
British government, which was now withdrawn. The Virginia 
bill of rights contained an eloquent declaration in favor of 
religious liberty, but left the question of a church establish- 
ment stni open. A strong party, composed largely of Epis- 
copalians but including some Presbyterians, favored an 
"assessment" law which would secure public support for 
some kind of Protestant worship. Patrick Henry favored 
this measure; but Madison and Jefferson opposed any 
kind of state support, and it was defeated by a narrow major- 
ity. In 1785 Jefferson's bill for absolute religious liberty 



THE AMERICAN CHURCHES 553 

was passed by the legislature. No Virginian could thenceforth 
be compelled to attend or support any form of religious wor- 
ship or be discriminated against in any other way because of 
his rehgious opinions. 

The constitutional changes of the Revolution affected Reorganiza- 
the American churches in various ways. For the Episco- American 
palians, political separation from the mother country carried churches, 
with it also separation from the state church of Eng- 
land, Because of technical difficulties resulting from par- 
liamentary control of the Enghsh church, the first American 
bishop was consecrated by bishops of the Scottish Episcopal 
Church, which was not restricted by any state connection. 
Before long, bishops were chosen in other states, and by 
1789 the American branch of the Anglican communion was 
reorganized as the Protestant Episcopal Church of the 
United States. About the same time the Roman Catholics 
also adjusted themselves to the new political situation. 
Some of the Maryland Catholics had taken an active part 
in the Revolution, and one of their number, Charles Carroll 
of CarroUton, signed the Declaration of Independence. They 
now got rid of the harsh legislation from which they 
had suffered before the Revolution, and presently took the 
lead in securing from the Pope an organization independent 
of the Vicar- ApostoHc in London. In 1789 a papal bull 
authorized the consecration of John Carroll, a cousin of 
Charles, as the first bishop of this church in the new republic. 
Other churches also were forming national organizations. 
In 1788 the Presbyterians organized a general assembly, 
and in 1784 John Wesley took tlie first steps leading to the 
formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United 
States. By 1789 these reorganized churches and several 
others were ready to cooperate in the great American experi- 
ment of "free churches in a free state." 

Important as it was to establish the principles of political 
liberty in statutes and constitutions, some Americans at 



554 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



The struggle 
for a 

democratic 
society. 



Primogeni- 
ture abol- 
ished. 



Antislavery 
movement. 



State en- 
couragement 
of education. 



least realized that political democracy could not be main- 
tained without a democratic society. No one felt more 
strongly than Jefferson how much needed to be done in 
this direction, especially in his own state of Virginia. One 
of the first measures of this kind which he advocated and 
carried through was a law abolishing primogeniture in order 
to make possible a wider distribution of landed property. 
In this way he hoped to reduce the influence of the great 
landowning families. 

Another subject which troubled many Americans was 
slavery. When Granville Sharp, a well-known leader of 
the English antislavery movement, suggested that this 
institution could hardly be reconciled with American pro- 
fessions about the rights of man, John Jay, then president 
of an antislavery society in New York, could only reply 
that American opinion was moving in the right direction. 
Some Virginians also were embarrassed by this anomaly, and 
Jefferson actually prepared a plan for gradual emancipation. 
Realizing, however, that emancipation alone would not 
solve the race problem, he favored colonizing the negroes 
in some other country. Measured by actual numbers, the 
results of this humanitarian philosophy were disappointing. 
In New England, where the number of negroes had always 
been small, emancipation was easily accomplished within 
a few years after the Revolution, and Pennsylvania passed 
a gradual emancipation act in 1780; but none of the otlier 
middle states took decisive action before 1789, and south 
of Mason and DLxon's line, the realization of Jefferson's 
ideal was postponed to a distant future. 

In the republican philosophy of this period, state encour- 
agement of education had an important place; for if the 
people were to be sovereign, they must be educated to 
carry this new responsibility. Among the state constitu- 
tions, that of Massachusetts was the first to give education 
a prominent place among the duties of the state. A remark- 



EDUCATION 555 

able clause, drafted by John Adams, set forth the dependence 
of free government upon the general diffusion of "wisdom 
and knowledge"; legislators and magistrates must therefore 
"cherish the influence of literature and the sciences, and 
all seminaries of them." Jefferson was equally interested in 
education and he proposed a series of public institutions ex- 
tending from elementary schools to a much improved and 
enlarged William and Mary College. Elementary instruc- 
tion was to be free and the best pupils were then to be 
selected for higher education. Once more, however, Jeffer- 
son's ideas were too advanced for his fellow citizens and 
many years passed before his plan of higher education was 
partly realized in the new University of Virginia. Yet some 
real progress was made during this period. State funds, 
especially revenues from public lands, were set aside for 
educational purposes. The North with its more fully 
developed town life still led in systematized public educa- 
tion; but North Carolina and Georgia took their first steps 
toward the establishment of state institutions of higher 
learning, a policy afterwards developed more fully in the 
state universities of the West. 

The work of these early conventions and legislatures A record of 

111 . ... 1 ... 1 constructive 

was marked by many mconsistencies; and yet, taken as states- 
a whole, it makes a remarkable record of constructive states- "i^nship. 
manship. Each state had, of course, its own problems which 
it was free to solve in its own way; but underlying all 
differences there was a common body of political doctrine 
which, though drawn from various sources, may fairly be 
called American. 

The making of an adequate federal union was more The making 
difficult and took more time; but even here the experi- union. 
mental stage was short and the' whole process of construction 
surprisingly brief when judged in the light of previous human 
experience. It was less than thirteen years after the Decla- 
ration of Independence when George Washington took his 



556 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



Colonial 
precedents. 
The British 
Empire. 



Distribution 
of govern- 
mental 
powers. 



place as the head of a new government which has now been 
tested longer than any other constitutional government in 
the world except that of Great Britain. 

In federal as well as state organization the American 
people profited largely by their experience in the British 
Empire. Under that system the self-governing colonies of 
Rhode Island and Connecticut could determine more matters 
for themselves than they now can as states of the American 
Union. In the proprietary colonies the inhabitants had less 
power; but here also the actual control of colonial business 
by the imperial government was comparatively limited. 
Even in a royal province tlie representative assemblies 
could go very far in the practical exercise of self-government. 
So Jefferson and some other radical thinkers came to regard 
the old empire as a kind of federal system. Virginia, accord- 
ing to Jefferson's theory, was a free commonwealth united 
to the commonwealth of England by a common king and 
not legally subject to the British Parliament. Jefferson 
was exceptional among the revolutionary leaders in the 
extreme to which he pushed this theory, but others were 
more or less consciously moving in the same direction, and 
the idea of some roughly defined boundary between the 
legitimate authority of Parliament and that of a colonial 
assembly was fairly general. 

The actual distribution of business between imperial 
and colonial governments also had some significance for 
later American history. Generally speaking, foreign affairs, 
the regulation of commerce either with foreign countries or 
between different jurisdictions within the empire, the 
regulation of coinage, and the establishment of postal facili- 
ties, were all generally regarded as proper business for 
the imperial government, however unpopular its action 
might be in any particular case. On the other hand, certain 
functions now exercised by the federal government were left 
mainly to the colonial assemblies. With some exceptions 



THE FEDERAL IDEA 557 

customs duties were fixed by colonial statutes rather than 
by acts of Parliament. Of course such action was not 
entirely uncontrolled; each colony was expected to conform 
to its charter, to certain royal instructions, and to the 
general principles of English law. If these limitations were 
ignored, a provincial law might eitlier be disallowed or de- 
clared invalid by the English Privy Council in its capacity 
as a court of appeals. 

Aside from such precedents as could be drawn from the Colonial 
British imperial system, American statesmen were doubt- and^projecfg 
less influenced by some of the earlier projects for colonial ^°'' "'"°'^- 
union, not so much by the rather limited New England 
confederation of 1643 as by the discussion which went on 
during the last quarter century of British rule. It was then 
that the conflict with France and the new problems resulting 
from the expansion of the empire led men to think more 
seriously of some political organization which might act for 
America as a whole. Most Americans, however, were then 
too intent on preserving their local independence, and so 
the Albany plan of 1754 proved no more acceptable in the 
colonies than it did in England. The taxation controversy 
also revived interest in some sort of federation, through 
which America might contribute its share of imperial revenue 
instead of acting only through a large number of provincial 
assemblies. Franklin's correspondence with Galloway and Franklin and 
others shows a steady interest in this subject until he finally ^ °^^^' 
became convinced that such a constitutional adjustment 
within the empire was impracticable. Even after Franklin 
had given up hope, Galloway urged an American federation 
as the best means of holding the empire together, and his 
plan of 1774, which was rejected by the First Continental 
Congress, contained some features of the Albany plan. 

As the prospect of federation within the empire faded Discussion 
away the Whig leaders set to work on plans of their own. continental 
Even in the First Continental Congress, Patrick Henry Congress. 



558 REPUBLICAN PRINCirLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



State 

sovereignty, 

1775-1781. 



The 

Continental 
Congress 
as a govern- 
ment. 



seemed to favor a permanent union with proportionate 
representation. In the early days of the Second Continental 
Congress FrankUn presented a plan of his own, based on the 
idea of proportional representation and giving Congress fairly 
liberal powers. A year passed, however, before the subject 
was taken up seriously and, though a committee was then 
appointed to draft a plan of confederation, the war was 
nearly over before any federal constitution was adopted. 
The actual government of the United States from 1775 to 
1 781 was, therefore, in the Continental Congress, whose only 
political authority consisted of the credentials given by each 
state to its delegates; these were not only extremely indefi- 
nite, but could be changed or revoked at will, so that Con- 
gress was wholly dependent upon the cooperative spirit of 
the individual states. Even in matters of general interest 
like the conduct of the war and negotiations with foreign 
powers, the states sometimes acted quite independently. So 
far, therefore, as legal theory is concerned, the case for state 
sovereignty seems to be complete and the Continental Con- 
gress appears as a merely diplomatic body, consisting of 
representatives from independent states which found it con- 
venient to act together for the time being. 

It is equally clear, however, that no mere diplomatic 
body had ever exercised such a wide range of functions as 
were actually performed by the Continental Congress. It 
maintained a Continental army, appointed the commander 
in chief, issued a Continental currency, incurred debts for 
the Union without consultmg the states, and finally, in 1778, 
ratified a treaty with a foreign power. Virginia may also 
have thought it necessary to ratify the treaty; but this 
was an exceptional proceeding. Certainly the American 
negotiators of that treaty were acting on the general author- 
ity of Congress and not on the instructions of thirteen differ- 
ent states. Without a formal constitution, Congress managed 
to organize executive departments for war, foreign affairs, 



ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION 559 

and finance, as well as a general postal service. It even 
organized a court for the trial of appeals in prize cases. 
From this practical point of view, it can hardly be denied 
that the Continental Congress, with all its obvious limita- 
tions, was a de facto federal government, acting for a real 
political entity known to the outside world as the United 
States of America. 

All this time, however, the need of a more tangible Framing 
constitution was fully recognized. The committee on confed- Articles of 
eration, of which Dickinson was chairman, reported to Confedera- 
Congress about a week after the Declaration of Independ- 
ence was adopted. There was some debate then; but it 
was not until November 15, 1777, that Congress agreed on a 
document to be recommended to the states. Within a year 
ten states ratified; but three held out, and it was March, 
1 78 1, before the consent of Maryland made it possible to 
put the new constitution into effect. 

The failure to reach an agreement earlier was due partly Question 

r 1 • t 1 • n • j'f of repre- 

to the pressure of war busmess, but chiefly to serious dit- sentation. 
ferences of opinion about certain provisions of the Articles 
of Confederation. The delegates from Massachusetts, 
Pennsylvania and Virginia were anxious to have in the new 
government a representation proportional not only to their 
population but to the financial and military burdens which 
they had to bear. The drafting committee, however, 
yielded to the demand of the smaller states for equal repre- 
sentation and after a vigorous debate that plan was finally 
adopted. 

The debate on the powers of Congress was less impor- Question of 
tant; for there was then little sentiment in favor of a strong {^nda,™ 
federal government. On one issue, however, the smaller 
states took a somewhat nationalistic attitude. That was the 
question of the western lands. The states which claimed 
this territory were determined to have their titles recognized; 
and the Articles of Confederation as finally adopted declared 



560 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



The 
Articles 
compared 
with other 
federations. 



State "sov- 
ereignty " 
asserted. 



that no state should be deprived of territory for the benefit 
of the United States. Interpreting this statement in the 
light of Virginia's recent reassertion of her sea-to-sea claim, 
the non-claimant states objected strenuously. From any 
point of view, a union in which a single state controlled 
such a vast territory would certainly be quite unequal in 
fact, whatever the machinery of government might be. 
The most persistent champion of the non-claimant states 
was Maryland, which, though voted down in Congress, 
kept up the fight by refusing to ratify the Articles and so 
helped toward a reconsideration of the whole question. The 
Articles were allowed to stand as tliey were, but with the 
definite expectation that Virginia would give up her claims 
to land north of the Ohio River. 

It is not quite fair to the Articles of Confederation to 
compare them always with the riper federal systems of the 
present time — the present Constitution of the United 
States, the Canadian and Australian federations, or the 
reorganized republic of Switzerland. Compared with any 
of these the Confederation of 1781 was feeble enough, but 
comparison with previous experiments in federal government 
gives a different impression. In delegating to Congress 
exclusive jurisdiction over foreign relations, however ineffec- 
tive that jurisdiction may have been, the Articles of Con- 
federation went farther than the Holy Roman Empire, or 
the German confederation of 18 15. The Dutch and Swiss 
unions were both very loose and they had much smaller areas 
to deal with. With all its faults, this first constitution of 
the United States was a serious contribution to the art of 
federal government. 

The governmental machinery of the Confederation was 
substantially that worked out by Congress before the Articles 
were adopted. The division of functions between Congress 
and the states also remained practically the same. What 
the written document did, in the main, was to state more 



THE CONFEDERATION AND THE STATES 561 

definitely both the underlying theory of the system and 
certain methods of doing business. The authors of this 
constitution took infinite pains to secure what they called 
the "sovereignty" of the states, though some of them would 
probably have defined that word in a less absolute sense 
than that later assumed either by nationalists or by advocates 
of "state rights." Undoubtedly the Articles were made by , 
states and for states. Like a treaty made by a group of ^ 
nations, its provisions could not be changed except by unan- 
imous consent. The Confederation was a "league of friend- 
ship" in which each member retained its "sovereignty, free- 
dom, and independence," with "every power, jurisdiction and 
right" not ''expressly delegated to the United States." As 
in a diplomatic congress, each member state voted as a 
unit and had an equal vote; delegates, though annually 
elected, could be recalled at any time by the state which 
chose them and supported them. 

The general principle governing the division of powers Federal 
between the federal and state governments was that Congress f,^ctbns. 
was responsible for the external relations of the United 
States and to a very limited extent for interstate relations. 
So far as foreign relations were concerned, the Articles were 
fairly consistent in delegating power to Congress and with- 
holding it from the states. No state could, without the 
consent of Congress, make a treaty, send or receive diplomatic 
agents, or engage in war except in case of actual invasion. 
Without the approval of Congress no state could keep a 
standing army or navy, or even make an agreement with 
another member of the Union. In this respect, then. Con- 
gress took the pldce of the British imperial government. 
Other imperial precedents were followed in giving Congress imperial 
power to regulate the value of coins, establish a postal service, ^"^^^^ ^^ ^' 
and deal with Indian affairs. Unfortunately the weak fea- 
tures of the old system were also taken over. The federal 
army was to be secured by requisitions on the states, similar 



562 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



Citizenship 
and inter- 
state comity. 



Defects of 
organization. 



Question of 
a federal 
judiciary. 



to those made by the British government on the provincia\ 
assemblies; the taxing power which the colonists denied to 
Parliament they also denied to their own Congress. In the 
matter of commerce Congress was worse off than Parlia- 
ment. Not only could each state establish its own tariff 
and tonnage duties, as in colonial times, but Congress had 
no general authority to regulate either foreign or interstate 
commerce, except to a limited extent by means of com- 
mercial treaties. 

One constructive feature of the Articles which has not 
been sufl&ciently appreciated is the clause which guarantees 
to citizens going from one state to another the privilege of 
citizenship in the latter. This may be considered the first 
step in the direction of a reall}'^ national citizenship. A 
similar spirit was shown in the agreement that the records 
and judicial proceedings of one state should receive full 
credit in the others. 

The deficiencies of the Confederation are well known. 
Not only was the authority of Congress closely limited, but 
it did not have the organization necessary for doing effec- 
tively the work assigned. The rule requiring nine states 
to approve all important measures often amounted prac- 
tically to a requirement of unanimous consent; for there 
were often only nine or ten states present. Equally vicious 
was the giving of executive as well as legislative authority 
to Congress. Notwithstanding the demonstrated weakness 
of committee management, no provision was made for a 
central executive which should leave Congress free for strictly 
legislative business. 

A few timid steps were taken toward a federal judiciary; 
Congress might estabHsh courts for trying crimes committed 
on the high seas and for hearing appeals in prize cases; 
there was also a plan for the arbitration of interstate dis- 
putes in land cases. Little use, however, was made of these 
powers, and the appellate court for prize cases disappeared 



NATURE OF THE CONFEDERATION 563 

after the war. The arbitration machinery was indeed used 
to settle the long-standing controversy between Pennsyl- 
vania and Connecticut about the Wyoming valley, and 
Livingston wrote of this to Lafayette as a model for some 
future international court, where "all disputes in the great re- 
public of Europe will be tried in the same way." In 
no other case, however, was such a decision actually ren- 
dered under the Confederation. The absence of a federal 
judiciary made Congress dependent on the state courts for 
the enforcement of its will on individual citizens, and this 
illustrates the fundamental weakness of the Confederation. 
So far as the individual was concerned, his primary 
allegiance was to the state in which he lived and the federal 
government could not reach him directly. Congress could 
make a treaty, but its enforcement depended on the 
efficiency and good will of state governments. 

Even after the adoption of the Articles, men differed as Nature 
to the kind of government they had established. John system. 
Adams called Congress a " diplomatic assembly " and Contempo- 

_ _ ° '^ ■' rary views. 

Livingston, in a circular letter to the governors, spoke of 
"independent states, united not by the power of a sovereign 
but by their common interest." Yet Livingston spoke in 
the same letter of "national objects" for which all should 
work together, and a committee of which Jefferson was 
chairman declared in 1784 that the states were "consolidated 
in one federal republic." In a similar spirit, Congress de- 
clared in its instructions to Jefferson and other ministers 
about commercial treaties, that "these United States" should 
be considered "as one nation, upon the principles of the 
Federal Constitution." Even in 1787, the members of the 
Federal Convention disagreed about the nature of the Con- 
federation. In short, the Union of 1781 was of such a 
kind that men found it hard to speak consistently, thinking 
of it in one aspect as a league of " independent states " and 
in another as " one federal repubhc." 



564 REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES IN RECONSTRUCTION 



General 

accounts. 



Collected 
sources. 

Political 
theory. 



Reconstruc- 
tion in the 
states. 



Virginia. 



Pennsyl- 
vania. 
Massachu- 
setts. 



Sources on 
the states. 



Beginnings 
of federal 
government. 



Sources. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, III, chs. XIV, XVIII. Van Tyne, 
American Revolution, chs. IX, XI, with McLaughlin, Confedera- 
tion and Constitution, ch. III. 

Johnson, A., Readings in American Constitutional History, nos., 
17-27. 

Meiriam, C. E., American Political Theories, 74-95. Dunning, 
W. A., Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu, chs. X, XII, 
and his Political Theories, Rousseau to Spencer, 91-99. 

Bancroft, United States (author's last revision), V, pt. IV, 
ch. IX. Fiske, J., Critical Period, 64-89. Jameson, J. F., Intro- 
duction to the Constitutional History of the States {Johns Hopkins 
Studies, IV, no. 5). Beard, C. A., Economic Interpretation of the 
Constitution, ch. IV. 

Eckenrode, H. J., Revolution in Virginia, chs. VI, XII. Henry, 
Patrick Henry, I, ch. XVII. Rowland, George Mason, I, chs. V- 
VII., Biographies of Jefferson by D. Muzzey and W. E. Dodd 
{Statesmen of the Old South). Hunt, G., Madison. 

Lincoln, Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, ch. XIV. 

Gushing, H. A., Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth 
Government {Columbia Studies, VII), especially chs. VI-IX. 
Morison, S. E., Adoption of the Constitution in Massachusetts, 
1780 (Mass. Hist. Soc, Proceedings, L, 353-411). 

State constitutions in Poore, B. P., Charters and Constitutions y 
and Thorpe, F. M., Colonial and State Constitiitions. Adams, J., 
Works, IV, especially 185-267, 283-298. Jefferson, Writings (Ford 
edition), II, III (especially Notes on Virginia, Queries, XIII-XIX). 
Madison, Writings (Hunt edition), I, II. McLaughlin et al., 
Source Problems in United States History, Problems, III, IV. 

Jameson, J. F., Essays in the Constitutional History of the 
United States, chs. I, III. Small, A. W., Beginnings of American 
Nationality {Johns Hopkins Studies, VIII, nos. I, II). Van Tyne, 
Sovereignty in the American Revolution {Am. Hist. Review, XII, 
529-545.) 

Hart and Ghanning, American History Leaflets, nos. 14 (Plans 
of Union, 1 690-1 776) and 20 (Articles of Gonfederation and pre- 
liminary documents). Debates in Gontinental Gongress, Journals, 
VI, 1076-1083, 1098-1106 (Library of Gongress edition). 



CHAPTER XXVI 
FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1783 TO 1787 



So far as the conduct of the Revolutionary War was con- The prob- 
lems 0* 
peace. 



cerned, the adoption of the Articles of Confederation ^"^^ " 



seemed to make little difference. The real test came after- 
wards, when the states were no longer held together by the 
necessity of defending themselves against foreign armies. 
Congress could not go on indefinitely borrowing from France, 
creditors were pressing for the settlement of their accounts, 
and every department seemed to bristle with difficult, 
almost insoluble, problems. 

In the organization of executive departments Congress Executive 
made no substantial advance. The disbanding of the departments. 
Revolutionary army lessened the importance of the war 
department and for a time there was no secretary in charge; 
in 1785, however, General Henry Knox was appointed to 
that office. In the management of the finances, Congress 
actually took a step backward. In 1784 Robert Morris, dis- 
gusted with his thankless task of staving off creditors and 
writing futile appeals to the state governments, resigned 
his post as superintendent. His place was never filled, but 
Congress appointed instead a treasury board of three mem- 
bers. In foreign affairs, Congress did somewhat better. 
Shortly after Livingston's resignation from the secretaryship, John jay. 
he was succeeded by John Jay, who, fresh from his experience 
abroad, might fairly be called an expert diplomatist. One 
point which Jay insisted on was that all foreign correspond- 
ence must pass through his hands before going to Congress. 

The personnel of the Confederation Congress was stronger 
565 



566 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1783-1787 



Irregular 
attendance. 



than has commonly been supposed, though it suffers from 
comparison with the signers of the Declaration or the members 
of the Constitutional Convention. There were other posts 
more attractive to able men than a seat in a body which 
had little real authority and where experience was so much 
disparaged that members could not serve more than three 
consecutive years. Of the men who stood out at the begin- 
ning of the Revolution few took part in the Confederation 
Congress. Washington was enjoying his retirement at 
Mount Vernon, though his correspondence kept him in 
touch with leaders in other states. Franklin was abroad 
at first and later was made president of his state council. 
Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry devoted themselves 
chiefly to state politics, and John Adams spent the whole 
period in the diplomatic service abroad. Not all the dele- 
gates, however, were second-rate politicians. Virginia 
sent Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, all three of whom 
were active members and left their mark on some important 
measures. Among the New England members were Roger 
Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth, and Rufus King; Hamilton sat 
for New York, and Charles Pinckney, later an influential 
member of the Federal Convention, represented South 
Carolina. In fact, a large proportion of the members of that 
convention profited by more or less experience in the Confed- 
eration Congress. 

Congress was, however, badly hampered by its con- 
stitution and the negligence of the states. An attendance 
of eleven states was unusually good, and under the 
nine-state rule two or three obstinate individuals could 
often prevent the passage of important measures. The 
Congress which was to ratify the peace treaty was supposed 
to meet at Annapolis in November, 1783; but more than a 
fortnight later only six states were represented, and only 
seven were present to receive Washington's impressive 
resignation of his commission as commander in chief. 



PROBLEM OF THE ARMY 567 

The new year began without a quorum to act upon the 

treaty, and it was not until January 14, with barely nine 

states present, that this important transaction was completed. 

This discreditable incident was fairly typical. Some months 

earlier, Congress had an even more humiliating experience, A peripatetic 

when it was forced by the mutiny of a few Pennsylvania °'^''^^- 

troops to leave Philadelphia and take refuge at Princeton, 

New Jersey. Later it migrated in succession to Annapolis, 

Trenton, and finally New York. It was with such handicaps 

that Congress had to take up a whole series of complicated 

problems. 

One urgent matter was the disbanding of the army. Settling 
always a difficult problem for the leaders of a successful army, 
revolution. Almost from the beginning it had been hard for 
the politicians and their constituents to appreciate the 
point of view of the army and its officers. During the war 
officers and men had been poorly and nregularly paid, and 
when peace arrived they faced the prospect of going back to 
civil life without adequate security for the settlement of their 
just claims. When the preliminary treaty was signed the 
officers had a general promise that they should receive half 
pay for life; but in the Confederation Congress, with its 
nine-state rule, it seemed impossible to carry out this agree- 
ment. Aside from the desperate condition of the finances, 
there were many who had what Madison called "a, penu- 
rious spirit" about their obligations to the army. 

Washington was especially troubled because he sym- Washington 
pathized with the officers and yet could appreciate the 
difficulties of Congress. While he was doing his best to keep 
the army from violent measures, others were not so scrupu- 
lous. In the autumn of 1782 Washington wrote that the 
patience of the army was almost exhausted and that there 
was danger of serious trouble. Already he had found it 
necessary to rebuke an officer who suggested the desirability 
of a monarchy, with Washington himself as king. The 



and the 
army. 



S68 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



"Newburg 
addresses." 



Action of 
Congress. 



Finance. 
The requi- 
sition 
system. 



Proposed 
amendments. 



crisis came in March, 1783, when some discontented officers 
at Newburg, New York, proposed a meeting to discuss the 
pay question, declaring that the time for moderate 
measures had passed. Fortunately Washington took the 
matter promptly in hand. Meeting the officers himself 
he urged them not to mar the patriotic record made in 
their years of service together; at the same time he 
promised to support their legitimate demands. A com- 
mittee of officers was accordingly appointed to take the 
matter up with Congress, which now realized the necessity 
of doing sometlimg and finally agreed to full pay for five 
years instead of half pay for life. This was at least a 
definite acknowledgment of obligation and in 1783 the army 
was peacefully disbanded. 

The chief reason for this and other embarrassments 
was of course the lack of a proper financial system. The 
requisition method worked no better for Congress than it 
had for the British government, notwithstanding the solemn 
promise that all such obligations would be "inviolably ob- 
served." The amount of money required to meet the run- 
ning expenses of government at that time would now seem 
quite insignificant, averaging $400,000 a year for the first five 
years of peace; but considerably larger amounts were needed 
to make the necessary payments on the public debt. Accord- 
ingly, Congress asked the states for $8,000,000 for the year 
1782 and for an additional $2,000,000 for 1783. Of these 
amounts, however, only about $1,500,000 was actually 
paid up to the end of 1783. 

Even before the Articles went into effect, their weakness 
was recognized by some of the leaders, and in 178 1 Congress 
proposed an amendment autliorizing a federal duty of five per 
cent on imports, to pay the interest on the public debt. 
Modest as this proposal was, it did involve a real change in 
the character of the Union; for if it had been adopted federal 
agents would have collected money directly from individual 



FINANCIAL PROBLEMS 569 

citizens within the states. So it is on the whole less strange 
that the amendment was defeated than that it should actu- 
ally have been ratified by all the states except Rhode Island. 
To the stubborn Rhode Islanders a congressional collector 
seemed almost as objectionable as his British predecessors. 
To meet this objection, Congress proposed in 1783 the 
"revenue amendment," authorizing, for twenty -five years, 
certain duties to be levied by Congress through collectors 
named by the states. This would provide only a part of the 
revenue needed; for the rest Congress would depend on 
requisitions, with the understanding that each state would 
set apart certain revenues for the purpose. This amendment 
was discussed at intervals for four years but received even 
less support than the five-per-cent scheme. Congress also 
considered the possibility of some compulsory process for 
collecting requisitions, but never got so far as to propose a 
formal amendment for this purpose. 

A government which could not pay its current expenses Coinage and 
or the interest on its debts was not likely to meet other '^""^^^ • 
responsibilities, and it was certain to have a depressing 
effect on private business. Especially demoralizing was the 
depreciated paper money, issued both by Congress and by the 
states, and the absence of any uniform standard of values. 
The Spanish dollar, still the most important metallic coin, 
passed in various ratios to the English pounds, shillings, and 
pence in which business transactions were ordinarily calcu- 
lated. To these uncertainties must be added the widespread 
debasement of the coinage, through clipping or otherwise. 
For any merchant who tried to do business outside of his 
own neighborhood this confusion of values was, of course, 
a very serious matter. Among those who realized the urgent 
need of reform in this respect were Gouverneur Morris, 
a clever young New Yorker, who served under Robert 
Morris in the department of finance, and Thomas Jefferson. 
Both worked out plans for a decimal system, which was 



570 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



Foreign 
commerce. 
British 
policy. 



Commercial 
treaties. 



Helplessness 
of Congress. 



finally agreed upon, with the Spanish dollar as the unit. 
The new plan was not, however, put into effect under the 
Confederation. 

There was similar uncertainty about foreign and inter- 
state commerce. Whatever might be said against the British 
colonial policy, it did establish a system of known rules. 
Under that system, American ships were limited in their 
trade with foreign countries; but in the ports of England 
and her colonies they shared the privileges of the British 
merchant marine. In 1783, no one knew what to expect. 
There were, indeed, some Englishmen who were willing to 
go far in promoting trade relations with the colonies. Adam 
Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, stimulated 
liberal thinking about international trade, among statesmen 
as well as among political philosophers. A strong American 
government might perhaps have secured more concessions; 
but the conservative forces in England soon reasserted them- 
selves, and orders in council were issued which, among other 
things, excluded American shipping from the West Indies. 

To offset the loss of former commercial privileges within 
the British Empire, Congress hoped for concessions from 
other nations. Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson were ap- 
pointed commissioners to negotiate treaties for this purpose 
and a few were actually secured, including one with Prussia 
in 1785 and a consular convention with France in 1788. In 
general, however, the results were disappointmg. After 
all it was harder to develop trade with continental Europe 
than with English merchants, who spoke the same language 
and whose business methods had long been familiar. So 
the great bulk of American foreign trade was carried on 
with England, and English statesmen concluded that they 
could get what they wanted without making substantial con- 
cessions in return. This attitude was naturally annoying to 
the Americans, and John Adams, the first American minister 
in London, did his best to change it, both by diplomatic 



COMMERCE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS 571 

methods and by trying to persuade his countrymen to 
adopt retaliatory measures. Some such legislation was 
attempted by individual states without much effect but 
Congress could do nothing without an amendment to the 
Articles, which the states refused to adopt. 

In the matter of interstate commerce, Congress was interstate 
even worse off, since the subject was reserved exclusively to ™™"^'^''^^' 
the states. Virginia, for instance, in levying tonnage 
duties, discriminated in favor of its own shipping as against 
that of its neighbors, and states which controlled important 
harbors or access to interior waterways sometimes made 
unfair use of these advantages. New York's discriminatory 
duties exasperated New Jersey to such an extent that the 
latter state proceeded to tax a lighthouse built by the New 
Yorkers on Sandy Hook. Scarcely less serious than these 
irritating controversies was the inability of the states to get 
together in constructive plans for the improvement of water- 
ways and similar enterprises. 

Domestic policies were complicated by international dis- Foreign 
putes, expecially with the British and the Spaniards. In 
1784, when Jay took charge of foreign affairs, no progress 
had been made in settling any of the outstanding issues. 
In the following year, however, a step of some importance 
was taken when John Adams appeared at London as the John Adams 
first of a long series of distinguished Americans who have British 
represented the United States at the British court. The ^°^^- 
reception of this arch-rebel by his former sovereign was a 
striking event, and the bearing of both men was worthy of 
the occasion. Adams expressed his desire to help restore 
" the old good humor between people who, though separated 
by an ocean, and under different governments, have the 
same language, a similar religion, and kindred blood." 
King George answered in a similar spirit, but little was done 
to give the sentiment practical effect. 

The new prime minister, William Pitt the younger, 



572 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



British 
policy under 
the younger 
Pitt. 



Western 
posts and 
British debts. 



Rutgers v. 
Waddington. 



was a great man with liberal views on many questions; 
but, so far as Anglo-American relations are concerned, 
he missed a great opportunity. For several years his gov- 
ernment failed to send any regular minister to the United 
States, and those who later were chosen for that post were 
quite unfit for so difficult a service. In the absence of a minis- 
ter, British interests were largely in the hands of consular 
agents at New York and Philadelphia, who sent home dismal 
accounts of the American situation. Meantime, Adams in 
London was discouraged by his inability to make any real 
headway or even to secure punctual observance of the peace 
treaty. 

In tlie matter of the western posts, the British ministry 
was influenced by the powerful fur-trading interest and by 
Canadian officials in sympathy with that interest; but the 
American case also suffered because the states did not keep 
their agreements about the loyalists and the British debts, 
a fact of which Adams was duly reminded when he made his 
formal demand for tlie surrender of the posts. Jay inves- 
tigated the subject carefully and concluded that, so far 
as many of the states were concerned, the British contention 
was well founded. He therefore proposed that Congress 
should pass a resolution denying the right of any state to 
construe, limit, or obstruct a treaty; each state was also 
asked to pass a general law repealing all acts in conflict with 
the peace treaty. Such a resolution was accordingly passed 
by Congress and some of the objectionable legislation was 
actually repealed. 

One state law mentioned by Jay was the New York 
Trespass Act, which permitted Whigs, whose property 
had been held by Tory occupants under the orders of 
the British military authorities, to recover damages. In 
the case of Rutgers v. Waddington, the Tory defendant, 
represented by Alexander Hamilton, questioned the validity 
of the state law on tlie ground that it was in conflict with 



RELATIONS WITH SPAIN 573 

the treaty and with international law. In spite of the intense 
anti-Tory feehng, the court ruled in favor of the defendant 
on the ground that his occupation of the property under 
military orders was in accordance with international law, 
and that state legislation must be so construed as not to 
conflict with that principle. In short, the Trespass Act, 
though not definitely declared invahd, was practically set 
aside. The decision was unpopular and the legislature 
denounced it; but it attracted attention outside of New York 
and Washington expressed his hearty approval. Generally 
speaking, however, state legislatures, in New York or else- 
where, were quite free to violate treaties if they pleased. 
Under such circumstances, foreign governments could hardly 
be blamed for wondering whether they were dealing with 
one government or with thirteen. 

Though the settlement of Indian affairs and the coloni- Spanish- 
zation of the Northwest were held back by the failure of compiica- 
the United States to take over the western posts, these ^°^^- 
complications were just then less dangerous than the failure 
to reach an agreement with Spain. With this subject Jay 
was quite familiar through his long experience abroad. 
His first business was to get Spain to accept the clauses of 
the Anglo-American treaty, fixing the southern boundary of 
the United States and guaranteeing the free navigation 
of the Mississippi; he wished also to make favorable trade Florida and 
arrangements with Spain and her colonies. On the first ^^^^ Missis-. 

° ^ sippi. 

two points, the Spaniards were stubborn. They knew that 
the United States had agreed in 1782 to accept somewhat 
less territory if Florida remained in British hands and they 
insisted that the lower Mississippi must be regarded as a 
strictly Spanish river. 

Confronted with an apparently hopeless deadlock and jay's policy, 
realizing the interest of the seaboard states in a general 
commercial treaty, Jay was willing to give up temporarily 
the free navigation of the Mississippi in return for other 



574 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1783-1787 



Opposition 
of the West 
and South. 



Beginnings 
of American 
colonial 
policy. 



concessions. A majority of the states were apparently willing 
to make the proposed concession but not enough to make 
the nine votes required, and the feehng ran high. The 
Kentuckians were so angered by this supposed betrayal of 
their interests that some of their leaders were ready to deal 
directly with the Spaniards. The air was full of intrigues 
and at any moment the government was likely to have its 
hand forced by some hot-headed frontiersman. The south- 
erners also, especially the Virginians, were deeply concerned, 
financially and otherwise, with the future of the West. 
Patrick Henry was particularly violent in his denunciation 
of Jay's proposal, and Madison, who had been trying to 
get his fellow Virginians into a more helpful attitude towards 
Congress, was much discouraged by tlie effect of this discus- 
sion in exciting sectional feeling against the northeastern 
states. 

Ineffective as the federal government was, in most respects, 
there is one great achievement which goes far to redeem it, 
namely, the inauguration of a unique and admirable colonial 
policy. The underlying principle of this new policy was 
taken by the Confederation from its revolutionary predeces- 
sor, the Continental Congress, which had declared as early 
as 1780 that any western lands ceded by the states should 
be held temporarily as federal domain, but ultimately formed 
into self-governing members of the Union. Nevertheless, 
when the Articles of Confederation went into effect, in 1781, 
there was not an acre of territory to which the United States 
had a perfectly clear title. The Virginia cession of that 
year made so many reservations that Congress refused to 
accept it, and three years passed before a satisfactory deed 
was executed. The Virginia deed of 1784 marks the real 
beginning of a federal domain, and during the next two 
years the title to the Northwest was further cleared by 
the surrender of the Massachusetts strip in 1785 and the 
partial Connecticut cession of 1786. Here at last was the 



PUBLIC LANDS 575 

opportunity to work out a definitely American colonial 
policy. 

In the administration of the new federal territory, two 
distinct problems had to be solved. There was, first, the 
question of the land itself. How was it to be managed 
while in the possession of the government and on what 
conditions should it be turned over to actual settlers? 
The second and equally important question was that of 
government for the present and future inhabitants of the 
district. 

In considering both these questions, and especially the Genesis of 
first, the impecunious Confederation Congress was naturally f^^d system, 
anxious to use the public lands either to bring in revenue 
directly or to satisfy the claims of the army and other public 
creditors. For this purpose it was important to adopt an 
orderly system of land surveys, which would enable both 
the government and the purchaser of land to know just where 
they stood. The New England people had been accustomed 
to township grants; but, so far, the western lands, more 
particularly in Kentucky and Tennessee, had been taken 
up in a very unsystematic fashion. North of the Ohio, 
however, where very little land had been occupied, there 
was a chance to develop a well-considered permanent policy. 
Among the members of Congress most interested in this 
subject was Jefferson, who had a plan by which the western 
lands were to be marked out in "hundreds," each ten miles 
square. After his withdrawal from Congress, the plan was The Land 
finally developed into the Land Ordinance of 1785, which o/f-g^"'^^ 
provided for rectangular surveys but substituted for Jef- 
ferson's hundreds the township unit of thirty-six square miles, 
marked off by north and south meridians and by intersecting 
lines running east and west. The immediate practical 
results were slight; but this general plan of land registration 
became a permanent feature of national policy. 

The question of governments for the western country 



576 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



Genesis of 
territorial 
goYerament. 



The 

Ordinance 
of 1784. 



The Ohio 
Company. 



was also much discussed during the whole period from 
1 781 to 1787, and numerous projects were considered. In 
1783, the Virginia delegate, Richard Bland, proposed a 
scheme for territories, or colonies, each covering two degrees 
of latitude and three of longitude. As soon as any colony had 
20,000 male inhabitants it was to enter the Union on equal 
terms with the original states. The best known of these 
earlier plans was drafted by Jefferson, reported by him from 
a committee of which he was chairman, and finally adopted 
by Congress with important ' amendments in April, 1784. 
The committee report, which covered all territory then 
under federal control and any other which might subse- 
quently be acquired, divided the whole region into "states," 
arranged in tiers from north to south, each state covering 
two degrees of latitude. In each "state" the free male 
adults could organize a temporary government; when the 
number reached 20,000 they might form a permanent con- 
stitution; and when the population was equal to that of the 
smallest of the original thirteen states, they would be 
eligible for admission to the Union. A striking feature of 
this plan was the proposed "compact," embodying certain 
fundamental principles : republican government, the exclusion 
of hereditary titles, and the prohibition of slavery after 1800. 
Congress struck out the antislavery clause and the ordi- 
nance as a whole was never put in force; but it shows the 
gradual crystallization of public opinion on certain broad 
principles of colonial policy. 

Meantime, representative men in the various states were 
planning for actual colonization. Conspicuous among these 
promoters was an organization composed largely of New 
England army officers, which called itself the Ohio Company. 
Through their agent, Manasseh Cutler, a versatile clergy- 
man, these people took the matter up with Congress and 
offered, if they could make satisfactor}'- terms, to buy a 
large tract of land in the Northwest. Such a business 



ORDINANCE OF 1787 577 

proposal naturally gave the subject a new practical impor- 
tance, and Cutler was a skillful lobbyist. A bargain was 
accordingly made for the sale of a large tract to Cutler's 
associates. About the same time the long discussion about 
territorial government came to an end with the adoption of 
a definite constitution for the "territory of the United States 
northwest of the river Ohio." 

This Ordinance of 1787 was not the work of a moment Ordinance 
but the outcome of long discussion, and it was based to a ° ^'^ ^' 
considerable extent on experience within the British Empire. 
This is especially evident in the provisions for colonial, 
or, as Americans prefer to call it, territorial government. 
After a preliminary stage, in which the business of the district Colonial 
was managed by federal officials, there was to be a government ^^^^^ ^^^' 
closely resembling that of an English royal province, more 
particularly that of Massachusetts under the charter of 
1691, with Congress taking the place of the King. In both 
cases, the governor was appointed by the federal, or imperial, 
government, and in both there was a representative assembly 
chosen by the property holders. In the Northwest Terri- 
tory, as in provincial Massachusetts, both the central 
government and the colonial assembly had a share in the 
choice of councilors, though in somewhat different ways. 
The American governor, like his British predecessor, had 
a considerable appointing power and a veto on acts of the 
assembly. The framers of the ordinance were evidently not 
radical democrats, for they insisted on property qualifica- 
tions — fifty acres for voters, two hundred for represent- 
atives, and five hundred for councilors. Suggestive also is 
the clause prohibiting interference with private contracts, 
which was evidently intended to protect creditors against 
radical economic legislation. So far, then, as strictly colonial 
government is concerned, the ordinance was not strikingly 
original. 

The most significant features of the Ordinance of 1787 



578 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



Articles of 
Compact. 



Organization 
of new states. 



A new 

conception of 
colonial 
policy. 



Other pro- 
visions of the 
"Compact." 



Colonization 
under federal 
supervision. 



were contained in the "Articles of Compact," which were 
declared to be perpetually binding both on Congress and on 
the people of the territory. Most memorable of all was 
Article V, which provided for the ultimate transformation 
of this American province into self-governing states, not 
less than three nor more than five in number. When any 
of these subdivisions had 60,000 free inhabitants, it could 
become a member of the Union with its own constitution 
*'on an equal footing with the original states in all respects 
whatever." The policy laid down in this article and since 
carried out in the admission of more than thirty states 
represents a new conception of the relation which ought 
to exist between colonies and the parent state. In all former 
systems, colonies had either become quite independent or 
had remained subordinate to the mother country. The 
American system makes possible permanent union, on the 
basis of political equality, between the new commonwealth 
and the original members. 

The "Compact" also guaranteed certain common-law 
rights, such as trial by jury and the writ of habeas corpus. 
Religious liberty was recognized; but church establish- 
ments were not definitely forbidden, and one of the chief 
reasons for maintaining schools was declared to be the pro- 
motion of religion. The clause on education should be 
interpreted in the light of a provision in the Land Ordinance 
of 1785, setting apart the sixteenth section of every town- 
ship for the support of schools. The humanitarian spirit of 
the time also found expression in a clause prescribing fair 
treatment of the Indians, and in the sixth article, pro- 
hibiting slavery. This article, though not strictly enforced 
for several years, certainly helped to check the westward 
extension of that institution. 

Colonization was delayed by Indian troubles; but in 
1788 the New England promoters of the Ohio Company 
planted their first settlement at Marietta, on the Ohio, 



ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL UNREST 579 

under the protection of a federal fort. This federal protection 
was significant of a new era in the westward movement. 
There was still plenty of room for individual initiative and 
self-help; but the colonization of the West was henceforth 
more largely under the supervision and control of the Union. 
These new commonwealths, at any rate, were never "sov- 
ereign" and "independent"; for they developed under a 
central government which assumed for them a distinctly 
national character. All this, however, was hardly appreciated 
by the men who were responsible for this great achievement. 
When the ordinance was voted, in July, 1787, Congress 
could hardly keep a quorum; public interest was turning to 
the more important gathering at Philadelphia, which was 
then hammering into shape a radical reconstruction of the 
whole federal system. 

The movement for a more effective union was partly The move- 
the work of far-sighted and broad-minded leaders who moreeSec- 
could look beyond state boundaries to the larger interests tive union. 
of the country as a whole, who saw things needing to be 
done which could not be accomplished without a strong federal 
or national organization. Such men, however, were few 
in any community. Before the movement could succeed 
it had to win support from another group, who could not 
take the larger view but were beginning to see that the 
weakness of Congress might have something to do with 
troubles nearer home. 

It was quite evident that many people were dissatisfied Econoniic 
with what had so far been done in the matter of political discontent. 
and social reconstruction. They believed that the early 
state constitutions gave the property-holding class an influ- 
ence quite inconsistent with real democracy. The farmers of 
the interior were especially convinced that, by unfair appor- 
tionments or otherwise, the commercial and financial interests 
of the seaboard had secured more than their share of political 
power. So far, there were no formal party organizations, but 



S8o 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



Economic 
grievances. 



Paper 
money. 



there was a tendency toward political divisions based on econ- 
omic interests. On one side there was a compact group of 
merchants and professional men, lenders of capital, men of 
education and social prestige, who felt that the revolution- 
ary spirit was in danger of going too far. To this class be- 
longed also many of the wealthier southern planters. On 
the opposite side were the farmers, the less prosperous ele- 
ments in the towns, the men who depended on borrowed 
capital and felt that they were not fairly treated by their 
creditors. 

These class conflicts were embittered by special conditions 
growing out of the war. Many people ever3rwhere suffered 
either from the burden of war expenses or from the necessity 
of sudden adjustment to new conditions after the peace. 
With scientific taxation, the financial load might have been 
carried more easily; but the taxes of that day were even 
less scientific than those of the present time. The New 
England farmer, for example, believed that the merchants 
were not paying their share of the cost of government. 
Interruption of certain lines of trade, especially with the 
West Indies, lessened the supply of specie; but at the 
same time there was an abnormal demand for money to 
settle old obligations and pay for European goods. Credi- 
tors, British and American, were pressing for payment; 
courts were again enforcing old claims; and lawyers seemed 
to be profiting by the troubles of their country neighbors. 
So there came a demand for legislation to help the debtor 
class; stay laws, deferring the payment of interest or princi- 
pal, and " tender " laws providing various substitutes for 
specie payments. 

The most popular remedy was the free issue of paper 
money; but tlie success of this movement varied widely. 
In Virginia it was strong enough to trouble the conserva- 
tives but was finally defeated; and in Pennsylvania the 
issues were comparatively moderate. In New England 



THE SHAYS REBELLION 581 

the paper-money party was formidable, especially in Rhode 
Island, which in spite of two important commercial towns 
was then controlled by the rural voters. There, as elsewhere, 
excessive issues of paper money caused rapid depreciation, 
and attempts to prevent this result by compelling people 
to take it under penalty made matters worse. A strilcing 
incident of this long controversy was the case of Trevett Trevettv. 
V. Weeden, in which a Newport butcher was sued for ^ ''"' 
refusing to accept paper money in payment of a bill. The 
plaintiff's lawyer relied on a state law authorizing the court 
to act in such a case without a jury trial. Thereupon 
Weeden's lawyer argued that the law itself was unconsti- 
tutional, null, and void; the judges did not technically com- 
mit themselves to this doctrine, but they refused to take 
jurisdiction, with much the same practical result. The 
legislature denounced the judges but left them in ofl5ce until 
their terms expired. 

In the interior of Massachusetts the feeling was about The Shays 
as intense as in Rhode Island; but the conservatives were 
stronger and better organized, with an able leader in the 
person of Governor James Bowdoin. Unable to get the 
legislation it desired, the paper-money party turned against 
the government — the legislature, the judges, and the 
lawyers. Radical conventions were held; rioters obstructed 
the courts; and at the end of 1786 the movement cul- 
minated in the Shays rebellion led by a revolutionary vet- • 
eran. Though the federal arsenal at Springfield was in danger. 
Congress seemed almost helpless. Some federal guns were 
actually used against the insurgents; but the suppression 
of the revolt was chiefly due to the energy of Governor 
Bowdoin and his associates, who financed the state campaign 
against the rebels by contributions from the wealthy citizens, 
telling them that it was a question of giving up part of their 
property to save the rest. 

A serious danger had been averted for the time being; but 



S82 



FEDERAL PROBLEMS, 1 783-1 787 



The con- 
servative 
reaction and 
the federal 
movement. 



there were sympathetic movements in other New England 
states and conservative people were still anxious. Even 
in Massachusetts, the rebels and their sympathizers were 
strong enough to prevent the reelection of Governor Bowdoin. 
Outside of New England, also, tliese events were followed 
with interest. Jefferson took the situation rather lightly, 
and Franklin, with his usual optimism, thought the dis- 
turbances were not very important. Others were less 
cheerful. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina feared that 
"liberty" was degenerating into "licentiousness" and called 
upon "men of virtue" to keep up the fight for "good 
government." Jay complained that the masses were carried 
away by "a desire of equality in all things" and were being 
played upon by unscrupulous leaders. Meantime, the fear 
of radicalism seemed likely to produce a reaction to the 
opposite extreme, until, as Jay put it, "the more sober part 
of the people" might "even think of a king." Washington 
in his retreat at Mount Vernon was also much disturbed. 
Even more significant was the fact that all over the country 
many conservative people of less intelligence began to favor 
a new federal system in the hope that it would counteract 
radical tendencies within the states. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, United States, III, chs. XV, XVII. Fiske, Critical 
Period, chs. III-IV. McLaughlin, Confederation and Constitu- 
tion, chs. IV-XI. McMaster, People of the U. S., 1, chs. II-IV. 

Bogart and Thompson, Readings in the Economic History of 
the U. S., 185-205. London Merchants on American Trade, 1783 
{Am. Hist. Review, XVIII, 769-780). Callender, Selections from 
the Economic History of the U. S., ch. V. Franklin, Writings 
(Smyth edition), IX. Jay, Correspondence, etc.. III. Hamilton, 
Writings (Lodge edition), I, especially 203-228 (letter to Duane, 
1780), and VIII (private correspondence). Jefferson, Writings 
(Ford edition), III. Madison, Writings (Hunt edition), II. 



BIBLIOGRArHICAL NOTES 5^3 

Ford, W. C, Washington, II, chs. V, VI. Hunt, Madison, Biographies, 
chs. V-IX. Oberholtzer, Robert Morris, especially chs. III-V. 
Oliver, F. S., Hamilton, bk. II, chs. Ill, IV. 

Sumner, W. G., Financier and Finances of the Revolution, Finance, 
especially II, chs. XVI-XXIII. 

Hertz, G. B., Old Colonial System, chs. X, XI. Fish, C. R., Commerce 
American Diplomacy, chs. VI-VII. Hunt, G., Department of macy.'^*^ 
State,' chs. II, III. Pellew, G., John Jay, ch. IX. 

Bates, F. G., Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union Economic 
(Columbia Studies), chs. Ill, IV. Warren, J. P., Confederation and ^JesT"^' 
the Shays' s Rebellion (Am. Hist. Review, XI, 42-67). 

Henderson, Conquest of the Old Southwest, ch. XX. Hinsdale, Western 
B. A., Old Northwest, chs. XI-XV. Alvord, C. W., Centennial ^n?thT 
History of Illinois, I, chs. XVII-XVIII. Treat, P. J., National Northwest 
Land System, chs. I-III. Barrett, J. A., Evolution of the Ordinance 
of 1787 (University of Nebraska Seminary, Papers). Cutler, 
W. P., and J. P., Manasseh Cutler. 

Macdonald, Select Documents, no. 4. Hart and Channing, Documents. 
American History Leaflets, no. 32. 



CHAPTER XXVII 
THE GREAT CONVENTION 

The movement to revise the Articles of Confederation 
began even before they v/ere finally adopted. The need of 
such revision was strongly felt by Washington and in 1780 
his young secretary, Alexander Hamilton, wrote a striking 
letter in which he boldly suggested that Congress should 
assume the necessary powers by a sort of peaceful revo- 
lution. If it had not the courage to do that, tlien a federal 
convention should be called to reorganize the government. 
In 1781 Congress discussed several amendments, but the 
only one actually recommended to the states was that author- 
izing the five-per-cent impost. The failure of this and other 
amendments proposed during the next three years showed 
that there was little chance of carrying through any measure 
which required unanimous consent. Meantime, the idea 
of something more serious than merely patching up the 
Articles was spreading. One of the more advanced thinkers 
on this subject was Pelatiah Webster, of Philadelphia, who 
published a pamphlet proposing a new federal constitution, 
with a Congress of two houses which could levy taxes 
independently of the state governments. By 1785 the plan 
of a federal convention was very much in the air. It was 
proposed by New York in 1782 and by Massachusetts in 
1785, though the congressional delegates from the latter 
state threw cold water on the plan. 

The convention idea harmonized well with a movement 
then under way in Virginia to secure cooperation on certain 
questions of interstate commerce. Such men as Washington 

584 



THE CONVENTION CALL 585 

and Madison felt especially the need of cooperation with 
the neighboring state of Maryland. The first tangible 
result of their efforts was a meeting of Virginia and Mary- 
land commissioners, held first at Alexandria and then at 
Mount Vernon; but it was soon evident that their problems 
were too large to be solved without bringing in representatives 
from other states. Accordingly Virginia invited all the states 
to join in a convention at Annapolis. The response was dis- Annapolis 
appointing, since only Virginia and the four middle states c°"^™''°°- 
were represented, and decisive action was clearly impossible. 
Fortunately, the leading spirits, especially Madison and 
Hamilton, were determined not to adjourn without taking 
some forward step and they put through a resolution in 
favor of a new convention at Philadelphia. Without going 
into details that might provoke antagonism, it was pro- 
posed that this Philadelphia convention should study the 
defects of the existing government and recommend such 
"further provisions" as they might think necessary "to 
render the constitution of the federal government adequate 
to the exigencies of the Union"; this recommendation was The Federal 
accordingly sent to the state governments. Congress finally of°"787!^°° 
indorsed the proposed convention, and by persistent efforts 
on the part of a few leaders all the states except Rhode 
Island were at last represented. 

Virginia, which had taken such an active part in the Delegates, 
movement, also set a high standard in its choice of delegates. 
Some revolutionary leaders, including Patrick Henry, 
Richard Henry Lee, and Jefferson, were conspicuously absent, Virginia. 
but more significant was the fact that Washington consented 
to serve. Among his older colleagues was George Mason, 
author of the Virginia bill of rights; from the younger 
men. Governor Edmund Randolph was chosen, together 
with James Madison. Madison, though not a spectacular 
person, was a hard worker, a solid thinker, and already at 
thirty-six an experienced legislator. All in all, he was 



586 



THE GREAT CONVENTION 



probably the most steadily efficient worker in the convention. 
Next in dignity and importance was the Pennsylvania dele- 
gation. When the convention met, Franklin was over 
eighty years old and his tangible contributions to the Con- 
stitution were not important; but his conciliatory spirit 
was helpful in holding the convention together. When tlie 
work was done, probably no signature except that of 
Washington did so much as Franklin's to win popular con- 
fidence. With Franklin sat three other signers of the Dec- 
laration of Independence: Robert Morris, the chief repre- 
sentative of "big business" in the convention; James 
Wilson, perhaps its ablest lawyer; and George Clymer, a 
rich Philadelphia merchant. A younger man but already 
experienced in public service was Gouverneur Morris. 
Belonging to an old New York family, his outlook was 
aristocratic and rather cynical; but he was a keen thinker 
and a real patriot. 

The Massachusetts delegation was less conspicuous than 
it had been in the old Continental Congress. Neither 
John nor Samuel Adams, the two radical leaders of 1776, 
was there, though John Adams probably had some indirect 
influence in the convention through his writings on govern- 
ment and his part in framing the Massachusetts constitu- 
tion of 1780. Perhaps the ablest member from the old 
" Bay State " was young Rufus King. On the whole, Connect- 
icut was more strongly represented, and its senior delegate, 
Roger Sherman, had the advantage of long experience in 
public service, both state and federal. He had sat in the 
first Continental Congress, signed the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, and helped to frame the Articles of Confederation. 
A practical business man and a sensible rather than an 
eloquent speaker, he was perhaps the most typical product 
of New England republican politics. Sherman's colleagues 
were younger men of conspicuous ability, notably Oliver 
Ellsworth, later Chief Justice of the United States. 



THE DELEGATES 587 

The most brilliant among the middle state delegates New York, 
was Alexander Hamilton; but he was outvoted by his two 
New York colleagues, and though he made some striking 
contributions to the debate, his advanced ideas of centrali- 
zation and strong government were not popular. In marked 
contrast to Hamilton was the veteran John Dickinson, 
who, as a member from Delaware, showed something of the Delaware, 
same cautious temper which made him an appropriate 
draftsman for the Articles of Confederation, New Jersey New jersey. 
sent some able lawyers, including her governor, chief justice, 
and attorney-general. 

Next to Virginia among the southern delegations was South 
South Carolina, with a group of rich planters and lawyers, 
two of them from one influential family. First in previous 
reputation was John Rutledge, a lea.der in the first Continen- 
tal Congress and war governor of his state. Important 
younger colleagues were Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, 
an officer in the Revolution, and his cousin Charles Pinck- 
ney, who though only tv/enty-nine years old had been active 
in Congress and had some definite ideas about a new consti- 
tution. The most interesting of the Maryland members Maryland, 
was Luther Martin, a vigorous defender of state rights. 

A few members of the convention were careful students Experience 
of history and politics, notably Madison, Wilson, and ancTprivate 
Hamilton; more characteristic of them as a whole was their business. 
experience in public and private business. About three 
fourths of them had been in Congress and seven had signed 
the Declaration of Independence. More than half the states 
were represented by men who had served as governor or 
president, and several members had held high judicial 
office. Others had served in the Revolutionary army; 
the two Morrises, Hamilton, and Madison were well informed 
about federal finances; and the diplomatic service was 
represented by Franls:lin, its most distinguished member. 
Well-to-do merchants from New England and Pennsylvania 



588 



THE GREAT CONVENTION 



could speak with authority about foreign and domestic 
commerce. Closely associated with these business interests 
were the lawyers, who made up a large part of the member- 
ship. There were also rich planters from Virginia and the 
Carolinas, land speculators on a large scale, and promoters 
of roads and canals. 

The convention as a whole undoubtedly represented 
the prosperous property-holding class. Several members 
were creditors of the state and federal governments, and 
therefore had a direct interest in the permanence of the 
Union. The influence of such personal and class interests 
in comparison with more altruistic motives undoubtedly 
varied with individual members. Washington, for instance, 
had given abundant proof of his willingness to sacrifice his 
personal interests to the welfare of the country at large. 
All in all, the most striking difference between the men who 
sat in the convention and those outsiders who remained 
indifferent or suspicious about the whole enterprise was 
that tlie former group had got from their experience a broader 
horizon, a better appreciation of general, as distinguished 
from purely local, interests. 

On May 25, the convention chose Washington as its 
president and settled down to its work. The sessions were 
held behind closed doors, the members were pledged to 
secrecy, and every effort was made to encourage full and 
frank discussion. There was no rule for cutting off debate 
by moving the previous question, and after the fullest dis- 
cussion actual voting could be deferred if any delegation so 
desired. Votes were taken by states, each state casting 
a single vote regardless of the number of its delegates. This 
disturbed some of the large-state delegates; but it was prob- 
ably good politics, because in the end the individual states 
would have to pass on the finished work. 

Generally speaking, the members of the convention 
agreed that the federal government should be made much 



VIRGINIA PLAN 589 

stronger. The most conservative plan proposed during the Points of 
debates went much further in this direction than would amr^f-'^* 
have been thought possible five or sLx years before. Starting f^rence. 
with this fundamental agreement, the chief difference which 
developed at the outset was whether the convention should 
try to strengthen the existing congressional system or 
should form a new government on different principles. This 
central issue was, however, complicated by special interests 
of various kinds so that the alignment of members was at 
times rather confused. 

There was, first, a group of nationalist leaders who The nation- 
stood for what were called "high-toned" principles, ^^ist leaders. 
Realizing for the most part that the state governments 
must be preserved, this group wished to make them clearly 
subordinate to the federal government, which should rest 
not on the states but directly on the people. Governmental 
efficiency was to be gained not only by giving Congress more 
power but by creating a strong executive. Some members 
of this group were even accused of being monarchists. The 
most influential of the nationalist leaders was Washington, 
who seldom spoke but whose opinions on fundamental issues 
were generally known. Other consistent advocates of this 
policy were Madison of Virginia, Wilson and the Morrises 
of Pennsylvania, Hamilton of New York, and Rufus King 
of Massachusetts. Their ideas were somewhat imperfectly 
expressed in the so-called Virginia plan, which probably 
represents more nearly the views of Madison than those of 
any other single person, though it was presented to the 
convention by Governor Randolph. 

This Virginia, or Randolph, plan proposed an entirely The Virginia 
new government with distinct legislative, executive, and ^^°' 
judicial departments. The legislature was to have two 
houses, and the states were to have proportional rather than 
equal representation. One house was to be elected directly by 
the people; and in the choice of the other the state govern- 



small states. 



590 THE GREAT CONVENTION 

ments were to have partial but not complete control. The 
general spirit of the plan is fairly expressed by the introductory 
resolution, added in committee of the whole, though after- 
wards eliminated to save the feelings of the state-rights 
men, that a " national government ought to be estabhshed." 

Large and The issue between nationalism and state rights was, however, 
complicated by the confhct between the large and the small 
states. Some delegates from Virginia, for instance, who 
were not at all "high-toned, " supported the original Randolph 
plan because it gave their own state a fuller representation 
in Congress. On the other hand, some delegates from the 
small states were willing to strengthen the federal govern- 
ment but feared that without equal representation their 
special interests would not be protected. In the early stages 
of the convention, the large-state group had the advantage, 
since the four leading states — Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
Virginia, and North Carolina — could usually count on the 
support of South Carolina and Georgia. The New Hamp- 
shire delegates were not present at first and Maryland was 
frequently divided; so tlie normal majority of the large-state 
group was sLx to four. 

The oppo- The opposition, though in a minority, was too strong 

to be disregarded. There were keen debaters as well as 
shrewd politicians in tlie Connecticut and New Jersey 
delegations and Martin of Maryland fought hard on the 
same side. These men regarded the Virginia plan as revolu- 
tionary. They believed the Confederation was formed by 
a compact between the states, much as the state governments 
were supposed to be based on the "social compact" between 
individual citizens. Some of them argued that to base the 
new constitution directly on the people would be not only a 
violation of the federal compact but also a radical change in 
the relation of the state governments to their own citizens. 
The states were equally sovereign and, therefore, should be 
represented equally. The nationaUst answer to this argu- 



sition. 



QUESTION OF REPRESENTATION 59 1 

ment was that it was more important to think of individuals 
tlian of "imaginary beings called states"; it was grossly 
unfair to give an individual who happened to live in a small 
state several times as much influence as if he lived in a large 
one. 

During the early weeks of June the debate went on not in The New 
formal sessions but more freely in committee of the whole, '^^ ^^^'^' 
until the Virginia plan, with amendments, was provisionally 
approved. Meanwhile the opposition had been working out 
a rival plan, which was submitted on June 1 5 by Paterson of 
New Jersey. This was not a purely negative proposal, for 
it recommended additions to the powers of Congress, including 
a limited taxing power and the regulation of commerce; it 
also proposed distinct executive and judicial departments 
and a method of coercing delinquent states. The vital 
difference between the Virginia and New Jersey plans was 
that the latter proposed no change in the organization of 
Congress, which would still act as the agent of "sovereign" 
and "equal" states. Again there was a warm debate, en- The Hamil- 
livened by some daring proposals of Hamilton which went °" ^^°' 
much farther toward centralization than anything so far 
presented. He proposed that the state governors should 
be appointed by the federal government and that the chief 
executive of the United States should be a powerful officer 
serving during good behavior. This was much too "high- 
toned" to please any except a few extremists, and the 
"committee of the whole" presently renewed its indorse- 
ment of the amended Virginia plan, which now went before 
the convention to be thrashed out in detail. It was not 
yet even a draft of a constitution, but merely a rough outline. 

The crisis on the question of representation came at the The question 
end of June. On June 29 the convention decided, six to sentatfon, 
four, in favor of proportionate representation in one house, 
and some of the small-state men began to think of compro- 
mise. Ellsworth said that, assuming the Union to be "partly 



592 



THE GREAT CONVENTION 



Deadlock 
and com- 
promise. 



The federal 
executive. 



national" and "partly federal," he would be satisfied if 
the "federal" or state-sovereignty idea could be recognized 
in the "second branch," or Senate. Accordingly he made a 
motion for equal representation in that house; but the 
large-state men were not yet ready to yield, and the motion 
resulted in a tie. The feeling during this debate was in- 
tense; a Delaware representative even suggested that if the 
old Confederation was abandoned the small states might 
have to find "some foreign ally" to "do them justice." 

The convention was now, as Sherman said, "at a 
full stop"; it was therefore agreed to refer the question 
of representation to a committee consisting of one member 
from each state. Not one of the aggressive nationalists 
was chosen for this committee, while the small states were 
represented by their most strenuous champions. Quite 
naturally, the committee adopted substantially Ellsworth's 
suggestion of equal representation in one house to offset 
proportionate representation in the other, with the unimpor- 
tant concession that the "first branch" alone could originate 
money bills. Madison and Wilson tried to defeat this com- 
promise; but on July i6 it was adopted, five to four. Even 
with equal representation the Senate was made far less 
dependent on the states than the old Congress had been. 
Each senator, though chosen by his state legislature, was 
to sit for a six-year term, during which his salary was to be 
paid from the federal treasury, and he could vote inde- 
pendently without being subject to recall. 

Scarcely less difficult than the problem of representation 
was that of the federal executive. All the plans agreed 
on the need of a distinct executive department, but they 
differed radically as to its organization and powers. At one 
extreme was Hamilton's plan for a single executive, chosen 
indirectly by the people, holding office during good behavior, 
and exercising great powers. At the opposite extreme were 
those who feared that a single executive would sooner or 



THE PRESIDENT 593 

later become a monarch. On the question whether there 

should be an executive board or a single head, the Virginia 

plan was noncommittal and Randolph himself urged a 

plural executive; but the convention was against him by 

a decided majority. It was also hard to decide how the Presi- Election and 

dent should be chosen. The Virginia and New Jersey plans ofilce! ° 

favored election by Congress and the convention seemed 

at first in favor of that plan. The great objection to this 

method was that it would make the executive too dependent 

on the legislature. It was therefore proposed that the 

President should be chosen for the fairly long term of seven 

years and made ineligible for reelection. It was finally 

agreed, however, that he should get his authority from some 

source outside of Congress. Direct election by the people 

was regarded as visionary even by ardent republicans, and 

so it was agreed that the President should be chosen indirectly 

by electors, the precise method of choosing electors in each 

state being left to the state legislatures. The question of 

the President's tenure of ofiice was decided in favor of a 

four-year term, with no restrictions on his reelection. 

After adopting the principle of a single head, efforts Concentra- 
were made to limit his power through some kind of council; executive 
but, in the end, executive power and responsibility were r^?E°'^^'' 
concentrated in the President, except that the consent of 
the Senate was made necessary for treaties and for certain 
appointments. The Constitution refers to "heads of depart- 
ments," and they have since been formed by the President 
into a "cabinet"; but their advice is not binding and the 
President could not share his constitutional responsibihty 
with them even if he wished to do so. This independent 
status of the President is to-day one of the striking differ- 
ences between the American government and the parlia- 
mentary systems of Great Britain and France, in which 
executive power is exercised by a ministry responsible not 
to king or president but to the legislature. 



594 



THE GREAT CONVENTION 



Checks and 
balances. 



The 
judiciary. 



The "su- 
preme law" 
and its en- 
forcement in 
the states. 



The idea of "checks and balances" runs through the 
whole work of the convention. The executive is checked by 
the Senate in the matter of treaties and appointments. 
The legislative department is checked by its division into 
two houses and by the President's veto, which was finally 
agreed upon instead of giving this power to a "council 
of revision," composed of the executive and the judges. 
Even more important, perhaps, was the "check" imposed 
upon both these departments through the judiciary. Prac- 
tically everyone agreed on the need of a strong and inde- 
pendent federal judiciary; but some members wished to 
limit it to a supreme tribunal hearing appeals from the 
state courts. They feared that inferior federal courts with 
original jurisdiction would interfere with the state judiciary. 
The national view prevailed, however, and Congress was 
authorized to establish such courts. Federal judges were 
to be appointed by the President with the advice and 
consent of the Senate; but they were to serve during good 
behavior and could be removed only by the difficult process 
of impeachment. 

A most difiicult problem was that of harmonizing federal 
and state authority. How could the federal government 
compel individuals within the states to obey the provi- 
sions of a treaty? How could a state legislature be pre- 
vented from taking action in conffict with the constitutional 
authority of the United States? The Virginia plan pro- 
posed two methods of dealing with this problem. One 
method, suggested by the King's disallowance of colonial 
legislation, was to give Congress a veto on state laws. 
Madison advocated this method and was much disappointed 
when it was rejected. The other method, proposed in both 
the Virginia and New Jersey plans, was to give Congress 
power to use force against a delinquent state. Unfortunately 
this plan implied a Union based upon states rather than 
upon individuals and seemed more likely to provoke an- 



THE "supreme law" 595 

tagonism than to lessen it.'^On July i6, when the congres- 
sional veto was being discussed, it was suggested that a 
better way would be to have unconstitutional legislation 
dealt with by the judges, as had already been done in some 
of the state courts. Thereupon the convention rejected the 
veto plan and, on tlie motion of Luther Martin, declared 
that the laws and treaties of the United States, made in 
accordance with the Constitution, should be the "supreme 
law" of the states, whose judges should be bound by them. Enforcement 
any state law to the contrary notwithstanding. Out judiciary. 
of this resolution there developed a far more sweeping 
statement, quite beyond Martin's intention but finally 
embodied in Article VI of the Constitution, by which the 
Constitution itself, together with laws and treaties made 
in accordance with it, was made "the supreme law of the 
land," binding on the judges not only as against state laws 
but against state constitutions as well. It was also agreed 
that in such cases federal courts should have original as 
well as appellate jurisdiction. 

The federal judiciary was expected to exercise a similar Unconstitu- 
check upon Congress. This is evident from the discussion w^sktionby 
about the desirability of making federal judges members Congress. 
of the council of revision. In opposition to that plan it 
was argued that the judges could more properly act on 
.legislation in their strictly judicial capacity, as individual 
cases came before them. State courts had already declared 
state laws unconstitutional and federal judges could do the 
same thing for acts of Congress which did not conform to 
the "supreme law." Not all the members of the Conven- 
tion accepted this view, but the weight of evidence seems 
to indicate that the framers of the Constitution meant the 
judges not only to interpret the statute law but also to 
determine whether it was in harmony with the higher law 
embodied in the Constitution. >< ,,. 

So far as the framework of the new government was 



596 



THE GREAT CONVENTION 



Relation of 
the Constitu- 
tion to the 
Articles of 
Confedera- 
tion. 



The taxing 
power. 



concerned, the convention had departed radically from the 
Articles of Confederation. Though almost everything in 
it was based on previous experience in the British govern- 
ment, m colonial practice, or in the state constitutions, 
the total effect was distinctly original. In sharp contrast 
to the old Congress, the new government was to stand 
squarely on its own feet, depending as httle as possible on 
the state governments, and acting everywhere, through 
its own agents, upon the individual citizen. In all these 
matters, the Articles of Confederation were of little use 
except by way of warning. Wlien, however, tlie convention 
came to the task of dividing the iield of government between 
federal and state authorities, the existing powers of Congress 
were the natural starting point. In foreign affairs the nomi- 
nal jurisdiction of the old Congress had been fairly com- 
plete; what was mainly needed now was to provide more 
effective means of exercising such authority. To a greater 
or less extent this principle applies also to such matters as 
the war power, the postal service, the regulation of weights 
and measures, and the coinage system, though as regards 
this last item the Constitution took a long step forward 
by forbidding the states to issue any kind of money — 
gold, silver, or paper. 

The most important additions to the powers of Congress 
were those relating to finance and commerce. In these matters 
the state legislatures were subordinated to an extent to which 
they had never been accustomed before, even in colonial 
times. After stubbornly denying the taxing power to Par- 
liament and to their own existing Congress, the states were 
now asked to give the new federal legislature general author- 
ity to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises"; 
subject, of course, to a few restrictions, which, though not 
unimportant in themselves, were relatively so in comparison 
with the powers given. While the federal government got 
these new sources of revenue, the states had to give up the 



REGULATION OF COMMERCE 597 

right, always enjoyed before, of levjdng customs duties. 
Radical, also, was the change in the matter of commerce. Regulation 
The control of foreign trade exercised by the imperial Par- °^ commerce. 
liament had, for the most part, been withheld from the 
Confederation Congress; but it was now made the exclusive 
business of the federal government. In the field of inter- 
state commerce, the states lost even the limited freedom of 
colonial days. This exclusive control of interstate commerce 
by Congress is even more important from an economic 
than from a constitutional point of view; for it estabhshed 
the principle of free trade within a wider area than that of 
western Europe. In this case, however, the victory was 
not easily won; for a time the task of reconciling the opposing 
interests seemed almost hopeless. 

In general, the commercial states of the Northeast wished Commerdal 
to give Congress liberal powers for the encouragement of ^tujaT' 
their special interests. In particular, they wished to pro- interests. 
tect their shipping from foreign competition, somewhat as it 
had been protected under the English Navigation Acts. In 
opposition to this view, the staple-export states of the 
South feared that sectional legislation might sacrifice the 
interests of the South and West to those of the Northeast. 
The attitude of Jay and his supporters on the Mississippi 
question had intensified this sectional feeling among the 
southern members, and they proposed to protect themselves 
by requiring a two-tliirds majority to pass a navigation act. 

About one kind of commerce the southerners could not The slave 
agree among themselves. Since the outbreak of the Rev- ^ctioiwd 
olution, the movement for the suppression of the foreign ffpresenta- 
slave trade had made considerable progress through tlie 
action of individual states, even in the South. In the con- 
vention, this traffic was vigorously denounced by Mason 
of Virginia and Martin of Maryland; but the planters of 
South Carolina and Georgia beheved that continued impor- 
tation of negroes was still desirable and they threatened to 



598 THE GREAT CONVENTION 

reject the Constitution unless the slave trade were secured 
against congressional interference. This question was com- 
plicated by that of sectional representation. If negro popu- 
lation was to be counted in determining the representation 
of a state in Congress, northern members objected to the 
indefinite expansion of that element through fresh importa- 
The com- tions. Both issues were finally settled by compromise. For 
promises. purposes of apportionment, negroes were to count only to 
the extent of three fifths of their total number. On the 
question of the slave trade the planters of South Carolina 
and Georgia struck a bargain with the northern merchants. 
Congress was authorized to regulate commerce by a simple 
majority vote; but the planting interests were protected by 
a clause prohibiting duties on exports, and the special 
demands of the lower South were partly met by forbidding 
Congress to abohsh the slave trade before the year eighteen 
hundred and eight. 

The Con- There was some genuine antislavery feeling in the con- 

stitution and . . . . 

slavery. vention; but it was impossible to establish the Union on 

any other condition than that of recognizing slavery as a 
matter to be dealt with by the individual states. Mean- 
time, the use of the word slave was carefully avoided. Fugi- 
tive slaves were referred to only as "persons held to service 
or labor"; the slave trade was covered by a phrase about 
the "migration of such persons" as the states might wish to 
admit; representation was to be based on free whites and 
three fifths of all "other persons." 
Sectionalism Scarcely less significant than the feeling between the 

and West. North and the South was anotlier kind of sectionalism be- 
tween East and West. The difference of opinion on the 
Mississippi question was mentioned in tliis connection also, 
and some members, southern as well as northern, feared 
that the future western states might come to have too 
much power. A North Carolina member, for instance, was 
opposed to paying the salaries of congressmen from tlie 



EAST AND WEST 599 

federal treasury, for fear that the old states might some day 
have to support representatives from the supposedly poorer 
states of the West, who would be employed in "thwarting" 
the "measures and interests" of the East. Just as indi- 
vidual colonies and states had kept down the representation 
of their western counties, so it was proposed to base federal 
representation, partly at least, on property, in order that 
the western states might not be too strong in Congress. 
Gouverneur Morris argued that the "back members" in 
tlie state legislatures were always against the "best 
measures. " " If the western people, " he said, "get the power 
into their hands, they will ruin the Atlantic interests. " 

Fortunately the West also had able champions. Wilson Champions 
declared that a narrow attitude toward westward expansion °^ ^^^ ^^^^' 
would be disastrous to the United States, as it had been to 
the British Empire. Madison also urged the duty of treating 
the prospective western states as equals in the Union. 
This broader view prevailed and no restrictions were imposed 
on the representation of the West. The advocates of restric- 
tion did, however, succeed so far as to strike out of the para- 
graph on the admission of new states, the words "on the 
same terms with the original states. " This was apparently 
done in order that Congress might be free to impose con- 
ditions. Morris explained that he did not mean to dis- 
courage the growth of the western country, but was un- 
willing to "throw the power into their hands." Actually, 
however, no conditions of the particular kind then suggested 
have ever been imposed. 

This discussion about the West was closely connected Protection 
with the idea of protecting the property-holding class P^perty. 
against radical legislation. No property qualifications were 
specifically required either of officers or of voters; but 
since the suffrage for federal elections in any particular 
state was to be that prescribed for elections to the lower 
house of the state legislature, property qualifications were 



6oo 



THE GREAT CONVENTION 



practically required for congressmen also, at least for the 
time being. The conservative business point of view is 
also illustrated by the clauses of the Constitution which 
prohibit the states from impairing the obligation of con- 
tracts, issuing paper money, or making anything except 
gold and silver a legal tender. There was little opposition 
to these clauses in the convention, and they undoubtedly 
helped to make the Constitution attractive to conservative 
people. 

After agreeing on principles, there was still the slow and 
difficult process of working up details; much of this work 
was left to the Committee of Detail and the Committee 
of Style. The former committee followed in the main 
the principles of the amended Virginia plan but it also used 
other plans, including that of New Jersey and one prepared 
by Charles Pinckney. The Articles of Confederation and 
some of the state constitutions were also drawn upon. After 
the report of the Committee of Detail had been thoroughly 
debated, the actual phrasing of the Constitution was intrusted 
to the Committee of Style, consisting of five of the ablest 
delegates. Since the choice of particular words and phrases 
was often much more than a mere matter of literary taste, 
it is worth noting that four of the five members of this 
committee — Hamilton, Madison, King, and Gouverneur 
Morris, the chairman — had taken the national side in the 
convention debates. 

When the Committee of Style finally reported to the 
convention, on September 12, the members were evidently 
impatient of further debate. On September 15 the Con- 
stitution was agreed to by all the states then present and 
two days later the engrossed copy was signed by one or 
more members from each of them. A few dissatisfied dele- 
gates had previously left the convention, and of those who 
remained three refused to sign. 

In framing the Constitution, the members of the con- 



REVOLUTIONARY PROCEDURE 6oi 

vention realized that they were simply draftsmen and that The plan of 
their work would go for nothing unless ratified by the states. Revoktion- 
Much, however, depended on the method of ratification, ary features. 
and in this matter the convention took a revolutionary 
step. Since the new Constitution was technically an amend- 
ment or a series of amendments to the Articles of Confed- 
eration, it should have been first acted upon by Congress 
and then ratified by the unanimous vote of the thirteen 
states. It was doubtful, however, whether such unanimous 
consent could be secured and the convention therefore de- 
termined that if nine states ratified the Constitution it should 
go into effect between those states, without waiting for the 
others. Scarcely less revolutionary was the decision to 
have the states act not through their legislatures but 
through conventions chosen by the people for that specific 
purpose. With this understanding, then, the Constitution 
was sent to Congress, which, with little enthusiasm and no 
indorsement, favorable or otherwise, submitted it to the 
states. 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 

Channing, Z/mVeJ^/o^w, III, 469-481, 494-517. McLaughlin, Accounts 

Confederation and Constilution, chs. XI-XVI. Farrand, M. °^ ^^^ ,. 
■' . ' convention. 

Making oj the Constitution and his Fathers of the Constitution. 
Comprehensive older accounts in Bancroft, United States, VI 
(author's last revision), and Curtis, G. T., History of the Consti- 
tution (or Constitutional History of the United States, I). 

Beard, C. A., Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, chs. Economic" 
I-VII. Compare Merriam, American Political Theories, ch. Ill, [j'oq^^'^^^" 
and McLaughlin, Steps in the Development of American Democracy, 
ch. III. 

Meigs, W. M., Growth of the Constitution in the Federal Con- Special 
vention (traces the development of particular clauses). Beard, C. *°P^*^- 
A., The Supreme Court and the Constitiition, ch. II. Biographies of 
Madison by Hunt, Ellsworth by W. G. Brown, Sherman by 



602 THE GREAT CONVENTION 

L. H. Boutell, Mason by K. M. Rowland, bring out different 

views. 
Sources. Farrand, M., Records of the Federal Convention (comprehensive 

collection of sources for the convention, including its journal, 
Madison's notes, and fragmentary notes of other members). 
Madison's notes also in 'EMiott^?,. Debates, V; Documentary History 
of the Constitution (U. S. State Department publication); and in 
his Writings (this part of Hunt's edition also published separately). 
Selections from Madison's notes, e.g., from the debates on repre- 
sentation, June, 1787, make excellent supplementary reading. 
See also McLaughhn and others, Source Problems, Problem III. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 

THE NEW UNION 

The friends of the Constitution began their fight for The Federal 
ratification witli one great advantage. Several of their anj^ts 
leaders, having sat in the convention, had become tlioroughly opponents, 
familiar with most of the questions which were likely to 
be discussed. There were also many other men who had 
taken an active part in the movement for a stronger Union; 
they knew what they wanted and felt that the new Con- 
stitution, though not perfect, was a long step in the right 
direction. So in most of the states this "Federal" party 
was well organized and equipped for the struggle. On 
the "Anti-Federalist" side, organization and leadership 
were less effective. A few dissatisfied members of the con- 
vention, like Martin of Maryland and Mason of Virginia, 
were ready to carry the fight into the states, and they could 
count on tiie help of some veteran revolutionists like Patrick 
Henry; Samuel Adams also, though finally won over to 
the Federal cause, was dubious at first. On the whole, 
however, the Anti-Federalist leaders were comparatively 
obscure and second-rate men. Furthermore, the working 
up of a political campaign on short notice was slower and 
more difficult in the Anti-FederaUst areas of the interior than 
in the more compact communities of the seaboard, which 
generally took the Federal side. 

The advantage of an early start was soon apparent. Early 
Within less than four months after the close of the Federal 
Convention, the Constitution was ratified by five states, 
a majority of the nine required to put the system into effect. 
Four of these five belonged to the "small-state" group in 

603 



6o4 



THE NEW UNION 



Pennsyl- 
vania. The 
fight in the 
legislature. 



Philadelphia 
and the back 
country. 



the convention; but their delegates had been satisfied with 
the compromise on representation and had gone home to 
work for ratification. In Delaware, New Jersey, and Georgia, 
the state conventions voted unanimously for ratification, 
and in Connecticut the majority was more than three to one. 
In Pennsylvania, the first large state to ratify, there was 
more of a fight, and in some respects the situation there was 
fairly typical of the country at large. 

The Federal leaders in Pennsylvania worked hard for 
an early decision, and within two weeks after the Federal 
Convention adjourned, a motion was made in the legis- 
lature for calling a state convention. The legislature was 
about to adjourn and the Anti-FederaUsts made desperate 
attempts to break the quorum; but local opinion in Phila- 
delphia was strongly against them and absentee members 
were forcibly brought back to their seats. Having secured 
a quorum, the Federal leaders put through their motion; 
about a month was allowed before tlie election of delegates 
and the convention was to assemble two weeks later. 
This was certainly moving fast, so much so as to justify 
the protests of the opposition. 

When the elections were held, early in November, the 
eastern section, and especially Philadelphia with its large 
business interests, chose Federal delegates by a decided 
majority. In the interior counties, the current ran in the 
opposite direction. These back-country farmers, especially 
the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, had waged a long fight 
against the conservatives of the seaboard; in 1776 they had 
put Pennsylvania on the side of independence and had 
forced through a comparatively democratic state consti- 
tution. The new federal system now looked to them like 
an attempt of the "moneyed interests" in Philadelphia to 
weaken their cherished state government by transferring 
much of its power to a central authority, less responsive 
to the will of the people. 



RATIFICATION BY PENNSYLVANIA 605 

The convention which met in Philadelphia in Novem- The Penn- 
ber, 1787, illustrated very well the various elements of which venUon! ^°°' 
the state was composed. The Scotch-Irish delegates were 
numerous and furnished the chief opponents of ratification. 
The Germans were also strongly represented, and one of 
their number, Frederick Muhlenberg, was elected president. Opposition 
On the Federal side the outstanding figure was James Wilson, 
but he was ably supported by Chief- Justice McKean. The 
recognized leaders of the opposition were William Findley, 
John Smilie, and Robert Whitehill; the first two born in the 
north of Ireland and the third of Scotch-Irish parentage. 
They were evidently able men, and all of them subsequently 
represented Pennsylvania in the new federal Congress; but 
none of them ever won a really national reputation. 

The opponents of ratification argued that the framers The issues 
of the Constitution had exceeded their authority, organized 
a consolidated rather than a truly federal government, and 
undertaken to secure its adoption by a method not author- 
ized in the Articles of Confederation. Wilson answered 
with a frankly nationalistic argument. There was no ques- 
tion, he said, of transferring sovereignty from the states 
to the federal government; for real sovereignty belonged 
only to the people, who, by ratifying this Constitution, 
would simply transfer certain powers and duties from one 
of their agents to another. The Anti-Federalists objected 
to the taxing power, which they thought might be used to 
cripple the state governments, and complained that there 
was no bill of rights to protect personal liberty, more par- 
ticularly freedom of speech and of the press. The suspicious 
attitude of the rural population toward the "moneyed in- 
terests" was quite evident and the Senate was considered 
especially dangerous from this point of view. On the other 
hand, Wilson and his associates argued that the new system 
was not less democratic than the state governments and 
that a federal bill of rights was unnecessary because the 



6o6 



THE NEW UNION 



Ratification. 



The fight 
in Massa- 
chusetts. 



The 

opposition. 

Economic 

factors. 



new government was limited to certain enumerated powers. 
While the Anti-Federalists urged the necessity of distrusting 
authority, the advocates of ratification pleaded for govern- 
mental efficiency. The new government, they said, would 
protect American commerce, provide for national defense 
against enemies abroad or at home, and prevent vicious 
legislation, particularly in the matter of paper money. In 
short, the adoption of the Constitution would "make us a 
nation. " 

Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts made on both 
sides, the outcome of the Pennsylvania convention was 
practically certain from the beginning. Under the existing 
apportionment the Anti-Federalist voters were not fairly 
represented; on test questions they were outnumbered 
two to one, and the final vote was forty-sk to twenty-three 
in favor of ratification. This result undoubtedly encour- 
aged the friends of the Constitution in other states, but the 
methods used by the victorious party were sharply criticized. 
It was even charged with obstructing the circulation of 
Anti-Federalist papers. 

The second of the larger states to act was Massachusetts. 
All but one of the delegates from this state to the Federal 
Convention came back to fight for ratification, and they 
had with them most of tlie merchants and professional 
men, especially in the coast towns and in the Cormecticut 
valley. In the state convention, they were superior to their 
opponents in parliamentary tactics and debate; but the 
numerical advantage was probably at first on the other side. 
The opponents of the Constitution were especially strong 
in the frontier district of Maine and in the interior counties 
of Massachusetts, where the insurgents of 1786 and their 
sympathizers were most numerous. These people took 
little interest in foreign commerce and were much afraid 
of the supposed machinations of the creditor class. Indeed, 
the fact that lawyers and moneyed men favored the Con- 



RATIFICATION BY MASSACHUSETTS 607 

stitution seemed to some of these rural voters a good reason 
for voting against it. 

What counted most heavily against the Constitution, Superiority 
here as in Pennsylvania, was the feeling of many plain leadership. 
people that to go into the new Union would be to move, 
to some extent at least, away from democratic control 
of tlieir own affairs. The only man of much prominence 
who sided definitely with the opposition was Elbridge Gerry, 
a member of the Federal Convention, who, curiously enough, 
was himself a large holder of government securities and a 
prosperous merchant; but for some time it seemed possible 
that Hancock and Samuel Adams might throw the great 
weight of their revolutionary prestige on the same side. In 
the end, however, both these men were won over by tlie skill- 
ful tactics of the Federal leaders, who flattered Hancock by 
helping to make him president of tlie convention. Realizing 
that an early vote would probably go against them, the friends 
of the Constitution insisted on having it first thoroughly dis- 
cussed, paragraph by paragraph. Finally, they also per- close vote 
suaded some doubtful members, including Adams, to vote [^oqJ^^^'^'^" 
for unconditional ratification, with the understanding that 
certain amendments would be recommended. Even with 
this clever management, the victory was won only by the 
narrow margin of 19 in a total vote of 355. Probably 
a direct vote of the people would have gone against the 
Constitution. 

In the spring of 1788 two more southern states ratified Maryland 
the Constitution. In Maryland, Luther Martin tried hard Carolina! 
to convince his fellow citizens that the Constitution would 
lead straight towards centralized, and perhaps even mo- 
narchical, government; but the prevailing sentunent was 
decidedly against him. In South Carolina, the opposition 
was more serious. The merchants and planters of the 
seaboard were fairly content with the concessions which 
had been made to them; but there was strong opposition 



6o8 



THE NEW UNION 



New 

Hampshire, 
the ninth 
state. 



New York. 



The contest 
in Virginia. 



in the back country, and nearly a third of the delegates voted 
against ratification. Eight states had now ratified, and in 
June New Hampshire came in by a close vote to fill out 
the minimum requirement of nine states; but three of the 
five largest still wavered. 

In New York, the enemies of the Constitution were 
better organized than in Massachusetts. At their head 
was George Clinton, the popular war governor and the 
manager of a strong political "machine." Back of him 
were a majority of the Hudson River landowners, who 
were jealous of the city merchants and especially anxious 
to save the revenue from import duties, which the new 
Constitution would take from them. On the same side 
were Yates and Lansing, Hamilton's state-rights colleagues 
at the Philadelphia convention, with other able politicians 
and lawyers. The stronghold of the Federal party was 
the city of New York, whose business and professional men, 
like the corresponding class elsewhere, wanted a strong gov- 
ernment, capable of regulating and protecting commerce. 
They were ably led by Jay and Hamilton, but at first were 
evidently in a minority. Their final victory by the narrow 
margin of three votes was due partly to skillful management 
and partly to the fact that the Clinton party hesitated to 
hold out against the nine states which had already adopted 
the Constitution. This ratification was unconditional; but 
some votes were secured by agreeing to recommend a new 
convention to revise the Constitution. 

While the debate was going on in New York an even 
more important contest was taking place in Virginia. Both 
sides had great names to conjure with. On the Federal 
side Washington was of course the outstanding figure; but 
with him were Madison and a young lawyer named John 
Marshall, who was destined to become famous as Chief Jus- 
tice of the United States. After some wavering. Governor 
Randolph also decided to support the Constitution, and 



RATIFICATION BY VIRGINIA 609 

Jefferson from his diplomatic post at Paris agreed that 
it was safer to accept the new plan with all its faults than 
to reject it. Meantime the opposition had on its side three 
conspicuous leaders of the Revolution: Richard Henry Lee, 
who in the Continental Congress had moved the memorable 
resolution in favor of independence, confederation, and 
foreign alliances; George Mason, chief author of the Vir- 
ginia Declaration of Rights; and Patrick Henry. This was 
a hard combination to beat, and it came near winning. 

Many of the arguments presented by the opposition Henry's 
were like those in other states. Henry objected to such ^""suments. 
phrases as, "We the people, of the United States," "ordain 
and establish this constitution," which seemed to transfer 
sovereignty from the states to the Union and establish 
a "consoHdated," or national, government. The President 
might easUy become a King and Congress might also 
abuse its power unless held in by a bill of rights. In all 
this there was comparatively little new matter. The great 
difficulty in Virginia was the fear tliat in the regulation of 
commerce Congress might sacrifice the agricultural interests 
of the South in order to promote northern manufactures 
and shipping. Jay's Mississippi proposal was again brought 
up in this connection. On such issues Henry was able to 
carry with him the great majority of his neighbors in the 
piedmont district. 

On the other hand, Washington and Madison were sup- Sectional 
ported by a majority of the tidewater planters and merchants, the^^ntest. 
whose experience was such as to emphasize the need of 
strong government. The Virginia system of representation 
gave the planters an unfair advantage; but even so the 
Constitution would probably have been beaten if many of 
the Scotch-Irish and Germans in the Great Valley had not 
broken away from their neighbors in tlie piedmont and 
voted with the Federal party. These valley people were 
probably influenced partly by friendhness toward Madison, 



6io 



THE NEW UNION 



Victory 
for the 
Constitution. 



North Caro- 
lina and 
Rhode 
Island. 



The new 
government 
organized by 
its friends. 



The first ten 
amendments. 



who had successfully defended their dissenting sects against 
the established church. When the convention finally voted 
for ratification by a narrow majority, that result was said 
to have been made possible by the action of certain delegates 
who acted against the known wishes of their constituents. 

The action of New York and Virginia practically ended 
the fight. Neither of the two states which still held out 
was important enough to cause much anxiety. In North 
Carolina, opposition elements, much like those in Virginia, 
prevented ratification until the following year. As for 
Rhode Island, then discredited by the excesses of the paper- 
money party, it was only a question of time when she would 
be forced to come in. For the present, however, both these 
States lost the distinction of being original members of 
the new union, which was formed by the revolutionary 
secession of eleven states from the old Confederation. 

In September the Confederation Congress recognized 
this revolution as an accomplished fact by asking the states 
to choose presidential electors and members of tlie new 
Congress. In some states the opponents of the Constitution 
made serious efforts to send to Congress men of their 
own way of thinking. Occasionally they were successful, 
as in the election of the first two senators from Virginia; 
Madison had to content himseK with a seat in the lower 
house. In most cases, however, men of Federal sympathies 
were elected. The unanimous vote of the presidential 
electors for Washington cannot of course be credited to 
any particular party; but he was the most influential leader 
of the Federal group. In short, the great experiment was 
to be conducted by men who wished it to succeed. 

On one important point the critics of the Constitution 
were successful. In one state after another they had de- 
manded a federal bill of rights, and in some cases the rati- 
fying conventions had recommended amendments for this 
purpose. There was even some talk of a second convention, 



INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 6ll 

which might have reopened many trying questions. Finally 
the moderates on both sides combined to secure action by 
the first Congress under the new Constitution, recommend- 
ing certain amendments, of which ten were ratified. These 
first ten amendments constituted substantially a bill of rights 
of the kind demanded by the moderate Anti-Federalists. 
Whether necessary or not, these formal declarations appealed 
to. most men at that time as desirable guarantees against 
federal interference with religious liberty, freedom of the 
press, trial by jury, and other cherished rights. Many 
people also felt safer when the tenth amendment set down 
in black and white the principle that all rights not dele- 
gated to tlie federal government or prohibited to the states 
were reserved to the states or to the people. 

One advantage of the controversy over ratification was The 
that, along with a great mass of unimportant speeches and '^^'''■'^'"'• 
pamphlets, it left behind a few really important essays 
on the science and art of government. Of these the most 
famous is The Federalist, a series of newspaper articles 
which appeared over the signature of Publius. A con- 
siderable majority of these were written by Hamilton; 
but several important ones were contributed by Madison, 
and a few by John Jay. It is hard to say how far The 
Federalist made votes for the Constitution; but it is per- 
manently valuable because it illustrates the political phi- 
losophy of the day and shows how the Constitution was 
interpreted by some of the men most responsible for its 
adoption. Very suggestive also are the principal publica- 
tions on the opposite side. Luther Martin's essay called 
Genuine Information, which was intended primarily for the Anti- 
enhghtenment of his neighbors in Maryland, brmgs out publications 
many objections to the Constitution and helps to show 
why it was unsatisfactory to a large part, perhaps a 
majority, of the American people. In Pennsylvania, the 
Centinel essays tried to do for the Anti-Federalists what 



6l2 



THE NEW UNION 



Contempo- 
rary inter- 
pretation of 
Constitution. 



The Consti- 
tution in 
relation to 
democratic 
ideals. 



Hamilton and Madison did for the friends of the Con- 
stitution. 

A study of this contemporary literature shows that men 
were already divided, somewhat as they were in the next 
century, about the nature of the government which was 
being established. Its opponents generally claimed that 
it was a centralized, or centralizing, system; a dangerous 
departure from the sacred principle of state sovereignty; 
a national, rather than a truly federal, government. Some 
friends of the Constitution, like Wilson for instance, frankly 
declared that the Constitution was intended to create a 
national government and that state sovereignty was an 
idle phrase. More cautious members of that party tried to 
disarm criticism by showing that the change in principle 
from the Articles of Confederation was less revolutionary 
than it seemed. In general, such men seemed to regard 
sovereignty as divided between the states and the Union. 
They undoubtedly spoke of the federal Constitution as a 
"compact"; but they often used the same word in speaking 
of the state constitutions. When, in one of his best-known 
Federalist essays, Madison described the proposed new 
government as neither wholly federal nor wholly national, but 
a composite of both principles, he was of course emphasizing 
the element of compromise in the system; but his state- 
ments also suggest that many of the people who adopted 
the Constitution did not have precise notions about the 
meaning of such words as nationality and state sovereignty. 
It has therefore always been possible for extreme advocates 
of nationalism on one side, or of states rights on the other, 
to find material for their arguments in the writings of the 
founders. 

Careful study of contemporary literature also shows 
that, though the radical democracy of the time was gen- 
erally against the Constitution, there was no clean-cut 
issue of this kind between the friends and enemies of the 



AMERICAN ACHIEVEMENTS 613 

Constitution. Speeches on both sides show much more 
emphasis on property rights than would now be regarded as 
democratic, as well as a keen interest in devices for curbing 
popular majorities. Some of Luther Martin's articles indi- 
cate real democratic feehng and so do those of some other 
less conspicuous Anti-Federalists; but it would be hard 
to prove that such opponents of the Constitution as George 
Mason, Richard Henry Lee, or Elbridge Gerry, were really 
more democratic than James Madison or James Wilson. 
It was Mason who said that the people could no more choose 
a President intelligently tlian a blind man could choose 
colors. It was Gerry, one of the chief opponents of tlie 
Constitution in Massachusetts, who declared that the evils 
of the time came "from the excess of democracy" and added 
in the same speech that though he was still a republican 
he "had been taught by experience the danger of the levil- 
ling spirit." In short, the evolution of American democracy, 
as well as of American nationality, was incomplete. 

When all is said, however, the inauguration of Wash- American 
ington as the first President of the United States does indeed ments^' 
mark the end of a great historic process, which began in 1607-1789. 
1607 with the landing of the first English settlers at James- 
town. The strugghng and dependent colonies of a Euro- 
pean nation had at last grown into self-reliant commonwealths 
capable of winning their independence from the mother coun- 
try, of reorganizing their institutions on republican prin- 
ciples, and finally of establishing a federal system dift'erent 
from, and in advance of, any previous experiment of that 
kind. Whether the American people of 1789 were already 
a nation or not, whether their Union was a national gov- 
ernment or a federation of sovereign states, it is quite 
certain that they had established the foundations upon 
which American nationality has been built. They had 
also determined to a large extent the political framework 
within which a great nation is still able to live and work. 



6i4 



THE NEW UNION 



BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES 



General 

accounts. 



Contempo- 
rary argu- 
ments. 



Special 
topics. 



Penn- 
sylvania. 

Massachu- 
setts. 

New York. 

Virginia. 



Rhode 
Island. 



Channing, United States, III, 515-524. Fiske, Critical Period, 
ch. VII. McLaughlin, Confederation and Constitution, chs. XVII- 
XVIII. McMaster, People of the United States, I, 454-502. 

Elliott, J., Debates, II-IV (state conventions, etc.). Farrand, 
Records of the Federal Convention, III. The Federalist (editions 
by H. B. Dawson, E. G. Bourne, W. C. Ford, and others; selec- 
tions by W. B. Munro). Representative Hamiltonian essays 
are nos. 15, 16, 21-23, 27, 70; see also 10 and 39 (Ford edition, 
38 in some others; The Constitiition Strictly Republican), by Madi- 
son. Writings of Washington, Hamilton, Madison. For opposi- 
tion arguments see Centinel essays in McMaster and Stone, 
Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, and Luther Martin's 
Genuine Information in Farrand, Records, III, 172-232. 

Beard, Economiclnterpretation of the Constitution, chs. VIII-XI; 
also his Economic Interpretation of Jcffersonian Democracy, ch. 
Ill, and his Supreme Court and the Constitution, chs. III-V. 
Libby, O. G., Geographical Distribution of the Vote of the Thirteen 
States on the Federal Constitution. McLaughlin, A. C, The Courts, 
the Constitution and Parties, 189-242. 

McMaster, J. B., and Stone, F. D., Pennsylvania and the 
Federal Constitution (with sources). 

Harding, S. B., Ratification of the Constitution in Massachw- 
setts. Morse, A. E., Federalist Party in Massachusetts, chs. I-IV. 

Biographies of Hamilton by Morse, Oliver, and Hamilton. 

Ambler, C. H., Sectionalism in Virginia, 53-60. Beveridge, 
A. J., John Marshall, I, chs. IX-XII. Henry, Patrick Henry, II, 
especiaUy chs. XXXVI, XXXVIII. Hunt, Madison, chs. XV- 
XVII. Rowland, George Mason, II, chs. V-VII. Tyler, Patrick 
Henry, chs. XVIII, XIX. 

Bate's, F. G., RJwde Island and the Union, especially ch. V. ' 



INDEX 



Abercrombie, General, in French and Indian War, 

381,382. 

Acadia, French colony establislied, 23, 212; under 
Cromwell, 133; character, 212; taken by 
English (1690) and recovered, 2ig; British 
attack and conquest, 222, 223; cession by 
France to Great Britain, 224; French influence 
over Acadians, 364, 367; dispute as to extent, 
367; removal of Acadians, 373. 

Act for the Impartial Administration of Justice, 
429. 

Act of Settlement, 194; protected judges, 232. 

Act of Union, 226. 

Acts of trade, 17S, 182-184; protective principle, 
184; problem of enforcement, 184; efltect of 
Revolution of 16S8, 205; readjusted by Gren- 
ville, 402-403. 

Adams, John, influenced by European writers, 2SS; 
broad thinking, 393; counsel for British officer, 
422; in first Continental Congress, visits 
churches in Philadelphia, 433; War Office, 44s, 
461; favors independence, 449; opinion of 
Paine's Common Sense, 450; resolution of May, 
1776, 452; moves for American independence, 
4S3; committee on Declaration of Independence, 
453; argues for independence, 454; comment 
on Declaration, 455; chairman of War Office, 
461; influence on Massachusetts constitution, 
463; secures loans from Dutch, 464; character 
and contribution to victory, 468; peace com- 
missioner, 513; envoy to Holland, 5x4; atti- 
tude as peace commissioner, S14; ignores in- 
structions, 519; negotiates for fisheries, 520; 
negotiates concerning private debts, 521; advice 
by Price, 527; belief in class distinctions, 53s; 
view on apportionment, S49; on veto power, 
SSo; drafts clause on public education in 
Massachusetts constitution, 555; on nature of 
Confederation, 563; commissioner to negotiate 
commercial treaties, 570; tries to secure com- 
mercial concessions from England, S7o; minis- 
ter to Great Britain, S7o, 571, 572; influence 
on constitutional convention, 586; cited, 340, 
433. 

Adams, Samuel, character and political theories, 
420; forces transfer of soldiers, 422; opposes 
Hutchinson, 423, 424; Committees of Corre- 
spondence, 42s; opposes tea tax, 426; in first 
Continental Congress, proposes Episcopal chap- 
lain, 433 ;_ state politics, 566; favors federal 
Constitution, 607. 

Addison, Spectator essays, influence on America, 
254. 

Admiralty, courts of, 241; jurisdiction, 403. 

"Adventurers," in Maryland, 71. 

Agriculture, in England, 3-5; of Indians, 50; 
in New England, loi, 102; in middle colonies, 
292; in the South, 320, 324. 

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty, 365. 



Albany, originally Fort Orange, 146, 157; fur 
trade, 146, 161; government, 15S; opposes 
Leislcr, 197; Dutch language, 284, 340. 

Albany Congress of 1754, 376. 

Albany Plan, 376; unacceptable to colonies, 377, 
557. 

Albemarle, Duke of, friend of Charles II, 134; 
Carolina proprietor, 136. 

Albemarle settlements, 13S-139. 

Aldermen, in England, 9. 

Alexander, Sir William, colonizer, 42. 

Algonquian Indians, political organization, so- 

Allegheny River, Celoron's journey, 369. 

Allen, Ethan, takes Ticonderoga and Crown 
Point, 446. 

Amboina massacre, 125. 

Amendments, to Articles of Confederation, de- 
feated, 568, 569, 571, 584; to Constitution, 
first ten, 610-61 1. 

American nationality, English and other contri- 
butions, 1, 130, 131. 532, 533; in 1750, 338- 
355; elements of unity, 340; English influences, 
340-347; new American ideas, 347-355; re- 
ligious tendency, 351-354; effect of westward 
expansion, 354; the making of an American, 
354-355; feeling about the empire, 3Q2-3g3; 
English predominate, 532, 533; cornmon body 
of political doctrine, 555; evolution incomplete, 
613; foundations established, 613. 

Americanizing influences, 347-348. 

Amherst, Jeffrey, takes Louisburg, 381, 382; 
expedition against Quebec, 383, 384; takes 
Montreal, 384. 

Amory, Thomas, Boston merchant, career, 263. 

Anarchy, threatened during Revolution, 463. 

Andre, Major, execution, 501. 

Andros, Edmund, character, 158, 189; governor 
of New York, 158, 160; attempted control of 
New Jersey, 162; governor of New England, 
189-192; relations with Indians, 190; taxation, 
191; disregard of Puritan traditions, 192; de- 
posed, 195. 

Anglican Church, 11; in Virginia, 56, 6r, 77, 
330, 331, 552; high church party, 96; in 
North Carolina, 137, 250; in South Carolina, 
142, 248, 250, 332; in New York, 159. 248, 
303, 304; in Pennsylvania, 171, I7S. 304; in 
New England, 192, 248, 250, 276; in Ireland, 227; 
position in the colonies, 248-250; bishops pro- 
posed for America, 249, 420J in Philadelphia 
and Burlington, 304; schools in middle colonies, 
306; in Marj'land, 332; in Thirteen Colonies, 
conservatism, 353; in United States, 533, 553. 

Anglo-Spanish War of 1739, 362. 

Annapolis (Md.), founded, 72; capital Mary- 
land, 323; Confederation Congress at, 566, 567. 

Annapolis Convention, 585. 

Anne, Queen, 220; reduction of power, 228; 
death, 249. 



XIV 



INDEX 



Anson, Captain, voyage of, 362. 

Anti-Federalist party, 603; in Pennsylvania, 
604-606; in Massachusetts, 606; in New 
York, 60S; in Virginia, 609; leaders elected to 
First Congress, 610; publications opposing the 
Constitution, 6n; democratic feeling, 613. 

Antinomians, in Massachusetts, 114. 

Antislavery movement, after the Revolution, 554. 

Apportionment, in states, problems of, 549. 

Aquidneck, settled, 117- 

Aranda, Count, war policy, 488; negotiation with 
Franklin, 489; questions United States claim to 
West, 528. 

Architecture, colonial, 265; in New England, 
265-266; in New York and Philadelphia, 294. 

Argall, Captain, attacks French colonies, 216. 

Aristocracy, in England, 9; in Carolina, 137, 140; 
in New York, 160, 196, 297; in Great Britain, 
228; in the South, 326; in Thirteen Colonies, 
348; conditions after the revolution, 534. 

Arizona, Coronado in, 24. 

Arkansas, De Soto in, 23. 

Arlington, Lord, Virginia grant, 81. 

Armada, Spanish, 15, 30. 

"Armed Neutrality," in Revolutionary War, 504. 

Arminian teaching, in New England, 277. 

Army, beginnings at Cambridge, 442, 44s; lack 
of discipline and equipment, 445; control by 
Congress, 445; suffers from weak adminis- 
tration, 463; management, 465; mutinies, 46s, 
Soi; inexperience of American officers, 465; 
foreign oliicers, 466; political interference, 467; 
Conway Cabal, 485; in 1780, 501; disbanding, 
567-568; ofTicers threaten revolt, 568. 

Arnold, Benedict, Canadian expedition, 447; 
military ability, 466; on Lake Champlain, 
47S, 477; treason, 501; British officer in 
Virginia, 503, 507. 

"Articles of Compact," in Ordinance of 1787, 578. 

Articles of Confederation, adopted, 501; nation- 
ality of signers, 533; framed and adopted, 559; 
delayed by question of western lands, 560; 
compared with other federations, 560; pro- 
visions, 560-563; citizenship and interstate 
comity, 562; deficiencies, 562, 563; proposed 
amendments, 568, 569, 571, 584; movement to 
revise, 584; relation to new Constitution, 596, 
600. 

Ashley, Lord, Earl of Shaftesbury, friend of Charles 
II, 134; Carolina proprietor, 136; leadership, 
140; interest in trade expansion, 181. 

Asiento agreement, 316. 

Assembly, colonial, in Virginia, 57, 59, 60; in 
Maryland, 72; British and American points of 
view, 234, 343; freedom limited by royal 
instructions to governors, 238; control oyer gov- 
ernor, in colonies generally, 241; conflict with 
governor in Massachusetts, 270-271; gains 
control in New York, 297-299; in Pennsylva- 
nia, 299-300; in South Carolina, 326; follows 
traditions of the English House of Commons, 
342-343; view of English lawyers, 34,5; New 
York assembly suspended by Parliament, 417. 

Assistants, or council, of Massachusetts, 103, 104, 
105. 

Assizes, court of. New York, 158. 

"Association." See " Continental Association." 

Austria, in Seven Years' War, 374, 384. 

Austrian Netherlands, in War of the Austrian 
Succession, 363, 365. 



Austrian Succession, War of, 363-365. 
Autocracy, in New Netherland, 147; in New 

York, 157; in New France, 210. 
Avalon colony, 42. 
Ayllon, in North Carolina, 23. 

Back country, physical features, 49; led by 
Bacon, 82; characteristics, 319, 323-325; prod- 
ucts, 324; under-representation, 329-330; con- 
flict with tidewater, 330; education, 335; 
Americanism, 354, 355; opposes Constitution 
(in Pennsylvania) 604, (in South Carolina) 
608, (in Virginia) 609. 

Backwoodsmen, at Kings Mountain, 500. 

Bacon, Nathaniel, Virginia leader, 82; Rebellion, 
82-84. 

Bacon, Sir Francis, in Virginia Company, 55. 

Bacon's Rebellion, 82-84. 

Balboa, explorer, 21. _ 

Baltimore, sphere of influence, 282; trade center 
of wheat farmers, 323; trade, 540; conditions 
after the Revolution, 540. 

Baltimore, Lord, 67. iSee Calvert. 

Banking, regulated by Parliament, 237. 

Baptists, in Massachusetts, 114; in Boston, 273; 
in New England, 277, 552; in Thirteen Colonies, 
radicalism, 353; in Virginia, 533; in West, 545. 

Barbados, English colony, 40, 43; trade ordinance 
(1650), 75; in 1660, 130; emigrants from, 139, 
141; constitutional controversies, 338. 

Barbary pirates, attack American ships, 536. 

Bartram, John, botanist, 308. 

Baxter, Richard, theological writings, 250. 

Bayard, Nicholas, aristocratic leader, 196. 

Beaubassin, fort established, 367. 

Beaurnarchais, aids United States, 487. 

Beausejour, fort established, 367; captured, 373. 

Bedford, Duke of, factional leader, 400; gains 
power in 1769, 422; faction in power during 
Revolution, 471. 

Belcher, governor of Massachusetts, 266, 272. 

Bellomont, governor of New York, cited, 296. 

Bemis Heights, American forces at, 483. 

Bennett, Richard, commissioner, 75. 

Bennington, battle, 483. 

Berkeley, Dean, philosopher, influence on America, 
254; visits Rhode Island, 278. 

Berkeley, Lord, Carolina proprietor, 136; pro- 
prietor New Jersey, r62, 164. 

Berkeley, Sir William, governor of Virginia, 60, 65; 
deposed (1652), 75; restored (1660), 77; op- 
poses Navigation Acts, 81; misgovemment, 
81-82; war with Bacon, 83; recall, 83; charac- 
ter, 84; Carolina proprietor, 136. 

Berkshire region, settled, 259. 

Bermudas, English colony, 40. 

Bernard, Governor, dissolves Massachusetts as- 
sembly, 421. 

Bible, importance in colonial literature, 341. 

Bible Commonwealth, in Massachusetts, 103, 105; 
in New Haven, 122. 

Biblical Christianity, advocated by Puritans, 89. 

Bicameral system, in Virginia, 59; in Massa- 
chusetts, 105; in state legislatures, 549. 

Bienville, Celoron de, claims Ohio valley, 369. 

Bigot, intendant of New France, 378. 

Bill of Rights, English, 194, 205. 

Bill of rights, in state constitutions, 550; in 
federal Constitution, 610-611. 

Biloxi, founded, 212, 221. 



INDEX 



XV 



Bishop of London, authority in colonies, 249; 
member of S. P. G., 250. 

Bishops of the Church of England, 10, 11; pro- 
posed for America, 249, 420. 

Blainville, claims Ohio valley, 369. 

Blair, James, opposes Spotswood, 328; president 
of William and Mary College, m. 

Bland, John, opposes Navigation Acts, 81. 

Bland, Richard, denies authority of Parliament, 
407; plan for territories, 376. 

Blathwayt, William, member Board of Trade, 231. 

Bloomsbury gang, defined, 400; gains power in 
1769, 422. 

Board of Admiralty, British, 229, 232. 

Board of Trade, organization and functions, 230; 
members, 231; defects, 231; disallowance of 
colonial laws, 238; indicts chartered colonies, 
268; reports against New York, 298. 

Board of War, appointed by Congress, 462. 

Bodj' of Liberties, in Massachusetts, 106. 

Bolingbroke, Lord, political theories, 39S. 

Bombay, acquired by Charles II, 134. 

Bonhomme Richard, victory, 467. 

Boone, Daniel, promotes colonization of Kentucky, 
496; character, 544. 

Borough, in England, 9; American like English, 
343- 

Boscawen, attempt against French fleet, 372; 
takes Louisburg, 381, 3S2. 

Boston, named, 100; under Andros, 192, 195; 
slave trade, 247; population, 259; shipping 
and trade, 261, 262; merchants, 263; houses 
and dress, 266; Newsletter, 278; mob attacks 
Hutchinson house, 409; headquarters of 
Townshend's customs service, 419; "Massacre," 
421; Tea Party, 427; Port Bill, 427; siege, 
444-445; foreign trade, S37- 

Boston "Massacre," 421. 

Boston Newsletter, 278. 

Boston Port Bill, 427, 431. 

Boston Tea Party, 427. 

Boundary controversies, colonial, 169-170, 295- 
296; over forks of the Ohio, 369, 389; in 
United States, 529; dispute with Spain, 573. 

Bourbons, claim to Spain, 219, 220; in France 
and Spain, 361. 

Bowdoin, James, governor of Massachusetts, puts 
down the Shays rebellion, 581; fails of reelection, 
582. 

Boycott, in opposition to Townshend Acts, 422; 
in 1774, 43S. 

Braddock, General, sent to America, 372; defeat, 
373- 

Bradford, William, governor of Plymouth, gs. 

Bradford, William, printer, 29s. 

Bradstreet, Lieutenant-Colonel, takes Fort 
Frontenac, 3S2, 392. 

Brandywine, battle, 481. 

Bray, Rev. Thomas, establishes libraries, 335. 

Brazil, becomes Portuguese, 21; French colony 
in, 25; visited by English, 26. 

Bread colonies, 247, 292. 

Breda, treaty of, 153. 

Breton fishermen, visit Newfoundland, 24. 

Brewster, William, Separatist leader, education, 
91. 

Bristol, importance in 1606, 4; voyages to New- 
foundland. 26. 

British creditors and American debtors, 237, 246, 
247; after the Revolution, 521. 



British Empire, lack of an imperial constitution, 
233; authority of Parliament, 234, 237; govern- 
ment, 234-242; menaced by l-reuch alliance 
with United States, 491; as a qu;.si- federal 
system, 556. 

Brooklyn Heights, Washington's army at. 478- 
battle, 479. 

Bryn Mawr (Pa.), Welsh name, 175. 

Buckingham, Duke of, colonizer, 41 

Bunker Hill, battle, 444. 

Bunyan, John, dissenter, 132. 

Burgesses of Virginia, 57, S9. 

Burgoyne, Sir John, lack of support in 
Saratoga campaign, 469; plan for 1777, 480; 
expedition, 481,482-484; surrender, 484; effect 
of surrender on diplomacy, 486, 490. 

Burke, Edmund, leader of "Old Whigs," 400; 
on tea tax, 423; opposes coercion of Massa- 
chusetts, 428; conciliatory proposals, 437; 
opposition inefiective, 471; in ministry of 1782, 
Sio; letter to Franklin (1782), 512; cited, 

353, 423- 

Burimgton (N. J.), settled, 164; trade, 294. 

Eurnaby, English writer, cited, 294. 

Burnet, William, governor of Massachusetts, 270; 
governor of New York, opposes exports to 
Canada, 293; intellectual character, 307. 

Bute, Lord, ministry, 385, 399. 

Eylcs, Mather, Boston clergyman and poet, 2S4. 

Eyllinge, proprietor West New Jersey, 164. 

Eyrd, William, fur trade, 80; large estate, 320. 

Byrd, William, II, Royal Society, 233; large 
estate, 320; character and career, 328. 

Byrds, library, 328, 335. 

Cabinet, British, 229; in United States, 593. 

Cabot, John, explorer, 26. 

Cacique, title in Carolina, 137. 

Cadillac, founds Detroit, 221. 

California, visited by Drake, 30. 

Calvert, Cecilius, founds Maryland, 67, 69-72: 
religious problem, 70, 73, 74, 75, 352; loses and 
regains control, 76, 77. 

Calvert, Protestant, reclaims Maryland, 312. 

Calvert, Sir George, colonizer, 39, 42, 67; Avalon 
colony, 42; career, 67, 68. 

Calvin, John, influence on English, 11, 89; on 
Dutch, 18; doctrines, 89, 90. 

Calvinism, 89, 90; expounded by Jonathan Ed- 
wards, 276. 

Calvinistic churches in middle colonies, 303. 

Calvinists, in Germany, 286; in Pennsylvania. 
303. See Presbyterians, and Puritans. 

Cambridge (Eng.), University of, 13. 

Cambridge Agreement, 98. 

Cambridge (Mass.), army at, 442, 443, 443. 

Camden, battle, 494. 

Camden, Lord, denies power of Parliament to 
tax America, 410. 

Canada, French colony, see New France; in 
French and Indian War, 373, 382-384; taken 
by British, 385; decision to hold, 383-386; 
ceded, 386, 429; new and old subjects, 38S; 
Quebec Act of 1774. 429-430; religious toler- 
ation, 429; no revolutionary spirit, 446. 

Canals, proposed by Chesapeake states, 341. 

Canton trade, American ships in, 337. 

Cape Breton Island, fortress of Louisburg, 363. 

Cape Fear River, colony on, 139. 

Cape Vincent, battle, 503. 



XVI 



INDEX 



Carleton, Sir Guy, defends Quebec, 447; in 

campaign of 1776, 475. 477; plan for 1777, 480. 
Carlisle, Earl of, colonizer, 3Q, 40. 
Carolina, patent to Heath, 41, 136; English 

colony, 136-143; charters, 136, 137, 185; 

boundaries, 137; government, 137, 140, 142; 

toleration, 137; aims of promoters, 138, 139; 

northern settlements, 138-139; Fundamental 

Constitutions, 140; South Carolina, 140-143; 

slow development before 1689, 311; complaints 

of the home government, 312; friction with 

proprietors, 313; proprietors give up, 314. 

See Carolinas, North Carolina, and South 

Carolina. 
Carolinas, fur trade, 215, 221; Anglican Church 

in, 250; population, 311; piracy, 312; Indian 

wars, 313. 
Carroll, Charles, of CarroUton, signed Declaration 

of Independence, 553. 
Carroll, John, envoy of Congress to Canada, 446; 

first Roman Catholic bishop, 553. 
Cartagena, sacked by Drake, 30. 
Carteret, governor of New Jersey, 162. 
Carteret, Sir George, Carolina proprietor, 136; 

proprietor New Jersey, 162; takes East New 

Jersey, 164; death, 164. 
Cartier, Jacques, explorer, 25. 
Castle William, British soldiers transferred to, 

422. 
Catharine II, armed neutrality, 504. 
Catholic Church, 10. See Roman Catholics. 
Cattle, in South Carolina, 141; in Carolinas, 321; 

in back country, 324. 
Cavaliers, in Virginia, 62, 75. 
Celoron de Bienville, claims Ohio valley, 369. 
Centinel essays, 611. 
Central America, Spanish in, 21, 22. 
Centurion, voyage of, 362. 
Chads Ford, battle, 481. 

Champlain, Lake, under British control, 47s, 483- 
Champlain, Samuel de, founds Quebec, 207, 208. 
Charles I, conflict with Parliament. 6, 74, 97; 

grants colonies, 40, 41; charters Maryland, 67; 

execution, 74; church policy, 96; attempted 

control of American colonies, 109. 
Charles II, ascends throne, 77; grants in Virginia, 

81; Connecticut charter, 123; policies and 

character, 131, 132, 133, 134; marriage, 134; 

patent for New^Netherland, 152; grant to 

Penn, 168-169; colonial policy, 181, i8s; 

pension from Louis XIV, 216. 
Charleston (S. C), founded, 141; importance, 142; 

in Queen Anne's War, 221; in 16S9, 311; 

center of provincial activity, 323; foodstuffs 

from back country, 325; intellectual center, 

33S; Library Society, 335; tea landed, 427; 

attacked in 1776, 447-448; taken by British, 

493, 494; British base, 503; held by British 

after Yorktown, 508; conditions after the 

Revolution, 541. 
Charleston Library Society, founded, 335. 
Charlottesville, British at, 507. 
Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions, in New 

Netherland, 145. 
Charter of Liberties and Privileges, in New York, 

159- 
Charter of Privileges, in Pennsylvania, 172. 
Chatham, Earl of, 415, see Pitt; out of power, 

422; opinion of Continental Congress, 437; 

proposal to define colonial rights, 437-438. 



Chatham-Grafton ministry, 415. 

" Checks and balances," in state constitutions, 
549-551; in federal constitutional convention, 
594- 

Cheraw, Greenes army at, 502. 

Cherokee country, Virginians trade with, 80. 

Cherokees, raids in Revolution, 498. 

Chesapeake Bay, description, 48. 

Chesapeake colonies. See Virginia, and Marj-Iand. 

Chesapeake country, physical features, 48. 

China, New England commerce with, 537. 

Church, established, in England, 10-12; in 
Virginia, 61, 248, 394-396 (Parson's Cause), 
552; in Massachusetts, 107, 552; in New 
Netherland, 149; in West Indies, 248; in New 
York, 248; in New England, 273; in South 
Carolina, 313; in South, 330; in Thirteen Col- 
onies, 352-353- 

Church of England, 10-12. See Anglican Church. 

Church of Ireland, Anglican, 290. 

Churches, reorganized after Revolution, 553. See 
names of churches and sects. 

Cincinnati order, membership hereditary, 534. 

Circular Letter, Massachusetts, 421. 

Citizenship, national, under Articles of Con- 
federation, 562. 

Civil War, in England, 7, 74; effect on coloni- 
zation, 42; effect on Virginia, 62. 

Claiborne, William, opposes Lord Baltimore, 70; 
commissioner, 75, 76. 

Clarendon, Earl of, friend of Charles II, 134; 
Carolina proprietor, 136; interest in trade 
expansion, 181; cited, 43. 

Clark, George Rogers, conquers the Illinois 
country, 499; opposition to Spain, 544. 

Class conflicts, after the Revolution, 580. 

Class distinctions, weakened in America, 348, 3SS. 

Classes, social, in England, 3-5, 9; in Virginia, 
62; in New England, 266; American tendency 
to break down, 348, 355; in United States, 
534-535; conflicts after the Revolution, 580. 

Clinton, General Sir Henry, attacks Charleston, 
447; military ability, 473; British commander 
in chief, 492; battle of Monmouth, 492; takes 
Charleston, 493, 494; defends New York, 506; 
orders to Comwallis, 507; reenforcements to 
Cornwallis, 508. 

Clinton, George, governor of New York, appeals 
to rural voters, 539; opposes Constitution, 608. 

Clymer, George, delegate in constitutional con- 
vention, 586. 

Coercive Acts of 1774, 427-430; effect of, 435; 
of 1775, 438. 

Coinage, regulated by Parliament, 237; debase- 
ment of, 569. 

Colbert, Jean Baptiste, policies, 208. 

Colden, Cadwallader, physician and author, 307. 

Coligny, promotes colonies, 25. 

College of New Jersey, founded, 307. 

Colleges, Harvard, 109, 275, 277; Yale, 277; 
in Middle Colonies, 307; William and Mary, 
333. 

Colleton, Sir John, Carolina proprietor, 136. 

Colonial agents, 242. 

Colonial Duty Act of 1673, 182, 185. 

Colonial government, development of self-govern- 
ment, 43, 109. 195-200, 267-268, 556; govern- 
ment in Virginia, 59, 60; in Massachusetts, 
103-110; reorganization 1685-1688, 188-192; 
after 1688, 200-204; influence of Board of 



INDEX 



xvii 



Trade, 230, 231, 238; control by Parliament, 
234-238; levies customs duties, 237, 557; 
control by Privy Council, 238-239; imperial 
agencies, 239-242; difficulties of overseas 
administration, 242; colonial agents, 242; 
English traditions, 342-347; new ideas, 348- 
350; powers, 556. See Assembly, Council, 
Governor, Representative government, and 
names of colonies. 

Colonial merchants. See Merchants. 

Colonial policy, new conception in Ordinance of 
1787, 578. 

Colonial trade (in general), seventeenth century, 
179-185; in English ships, 182; supervised by 
Board of Trade, 230; regulated by Parliament, 
234-236; trade with England, 243; articles 
and conditions of commerce, 243-247; map, 244. 

Colonies. See names of colonies; also Colonial, 
Colonization, Thirteen Colonies. 

Colonists, rights of, 234, 344; proposed trial in 
England, 421. 

Colonization, motives of, 31-34, 42-43, 88, 92, 
100, 133-136; public interest, 37; promoters 
of, 38, 87, 134; methods of promoting, 39, 135; 
English colonies in 1660, 130; new phases, 131; 
in Restoration era, 133-135; aims and methods, 
135- 

Columbus, Christopher, discoverer, 20. 

Commerce, English, 4, 32, 33, 132-13S, 179-185, 
243-247; West Indies, 40, 23s, 247, 261, 264, 
403, 405, 537, 539, 570; of New England, 103, 
138, 139, 151, 183, 236, 246-247, 261-264, 
536-538; in Restoration era, 132-135; of 
colonies in general, 179-185, 234, 243-247, see 
Colonial trade; of New York, 160, 247, 292; 
of Virginia, iSo, 183, 246; French, under 
Colbert, 208; supervised by Board of Trade, 
230; colonial commerce with England, 243-247; 
of Pennsylvania, 247; of middle colonies, 293; 
importance in British foreign policy, 359, 360; 
regulated by Continental Congress, 451; Ameri- 
can, after the Revolution, 536-537, 539, 540; 
controlled by states, 562; under Confederation, 
570, 571; Congress given power to regulate, 
597.. 

Conmiissary -general, bad management, 465. 

Commissioners of Customs, British, 229, 232I 
new, 417. 

Committee of Detail, in constitutional convention, 
600. 

Committee of Style, in constitutional convention, 
600. 

Committee on Trade and Plantations, 185; 
opposes Massachusetts charter, 186-187; re- 
placed by Board of Trade, 230. 

"Committees of Correspondence," organized, 425. 

Common lands, in England, s; in Massachusetts, 
102. 

Common law, in England, 7; in Massachusetts, 
105 ; in the colonies, 344-346; American 
modifications, 350. 

Common Pleas, court in England, 7. 

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, 450. 

Commons, House of, in 1606, 6; gains control of 
executive, 228; unrepresentative character, 228, 
398, 470. 

Commonwealth in England, 74. 

Communal system, in Virginia, 57; in Plymouth, 
93. 94-. 

Communication, slowness, 536. 



Community spirit, in New England, 102. 

Concession and Agreement, New Jersey, 163. 

"Conciliatory Proposition," of Lord North, 438. 

Concord, battle, 442. 

Confederates of 1861, use of economic resources, 
464. 

Confederation, adopted, 501, 559; weakness, 501; 
state sovereignty under, 561; deficiencies, 562, 
563; nature of, 563; problems of jjeace, 565; 
colonial policy, 574-579; secession of eleven 
states from, 610. 

Confederation Congress, equal representation, 559; 
functions, 560, 561, 562; control of foreign 
relations, 561; no power to ta.\, 562; nine-state 
rule, 562, 566; organization of executive de- 
partments, 565; personnel, 565-566; irregular 
attendance, 566; ratifies treaty with Great 
Britain, 524, 567; migrations, 567; settling 
with the army, 567-568; finances, 568, 569; 
proposes amendments, 568, 569, 571; resolution 
denying right of states to interfere with treaties, 
572; public land policy, 575; proposes con- 
vention at Philadelphia, 585; submits Consti- 
tution to states, 601; asks for elections under 
the Constitution, 610. 

Congregational organization of Separatists, 91. 

Congregational system, in Plymouth, 95; in 
Massachusetts, 107; in New England, 273-275. 

Congregationalists, in South Carolina, 142; in 
New Netherland, 149; relation with English 
Independents, 250; in _ Thirteen Colonies, 
radicalism, 353. See Puritans. 

Congress, Albany, 376. 

Congress, Confederation. See Confederation 
Congress. 

Congress, Continental. See Continental Congress. 

Congress, provincial. See Provincial congress. 

Congress, Stamp Act, 408. 

Congress, under the Constitution, made up of two 
houses, 592; unconstitutional legislation by, 
595 ; powers, 596-598. 

Connecticut, Plymouth fur trade, 94; colony 
founded, 120-122; Dutch in, 120, 146; Funda- 
mental Orders. 121; population, 121, 122; 
charter, 123, 185; Pequot War, 123; in New 
England Confederation, 126, 127; dispute with 
Massachusetts, 127; treaty with Stuyvesant, 
151; western boundary, 156; merged in New 
England, 189; separate government resumed, 
195; resumes charter, 203; about 1690, 258; 
self-government, 267; churches in, 273, 275; 
church and state relations, 276, 552; edu- 
cation, 277, 278; boundary disputes, 295; 
religious toleration, 352; independent govern- 
ment, 449; state constitution, 462, 463; loses 
Wyoming valley, 529, 563; claims Northwest, 
530; yields claim to Northwest, 530, 574; first 
American bishopric, 533; trade through New 
York city, 538; westward movement of 
Connecticut pioneers, 542; extent of power as 
colony, 556; Wyoming valley dispute settled by 
arbitration, 563; delegates in constitutional 
convention, 586; in small-state group, 590; 
ratifies federal Constitution, 604. See New Eng- 
land, and Thirteen Colonies. 

"Connecticut Reserve," 530. 

Connecticut River, fertile valley, loi; Dutch 
settlers on, 146; English settlements about 
1690, 257, 258, 259. 

Conservative provisions in Constitution, 600. 



xvm 



INDEX 



Conservatives, in Massachusetts, 272, 274, 419; 
in first Continental Congress, 434. See Loyalists. 
Consociation, in Connecticut, 275. 
Conspiracy of Pontiac, 389-390. 

Constables, in England, 8; American like English, 
343-344- 

Constitution, federal, nationality of the signers, 
533; framework of the government, 592- 
595; compromises, 592, 598; relation to the 
Articles of Confederation, 596, 600; powers of 
Congress, 596-598; provisions concerning 
slavery, 598; conser\'ative provisions, 600; 
committees on detail and on style, 600; signed, 
600; plan of ratification, 601; ratLiied, 603- 
6ro; by Pennsylvania, 604-606; by Massa- 
chusetts, 606-607; by New York, 608; by 
Virginia, 608-610; arguments for and against, 
in Pennsylvania, 605-606; Henry's arguments 
against, 609; first ten amendments, 610-61 1; 
contemporary interpretation of, 611-612; re- 
lation to democratic ideals, 612. 

Constitutional limitations, American ideas, 349. 

Constitutions, state, 547-551. 

Continental army, 465. 

"Continental Association," of 1774, 435; en- 
forcement, 439; loyalist argument against, 441. 

Continental Congress, first, 433-435; appeals re- 
jected, 438; net result, 441. 

Continental Congress, second, call for, 435; 
members, 442; appoints Washington com- 
mander, 443; control of army, 445, 46s; appeal 
to Canadians, 446; approaches foreign powers, 
448; advises formation of temporary govern- 
ments, 449; opens ports to foreign shipping, 
451; advises independent governments, 452; 
adopts Declaration of Independence, 453-455; 
functions, 460; character, 461; methods, 461- 
462; economic problems, paper money, 464; 
management of army, 465; Conway Cabal, 485; 
Articles of Confederation adopted, 501; re- 
organizes executive departments, 502; appoints 
peace commissioners, 513; political authority, 
558; governmental functions, 558; z. de facto 
federal government, 559; colonial policy, 574. 

Continental money, 464. 

Convention, Annapolis, 585. 

Convention, constitutional (of 1787), first sug- 
gested, 584; delegates, 585-588; procedure, 588; 
nationalist leaders, 589; large and small states, 
S90; question of representation, 591-592, 
598; federal executive, 592-593; checks and 
balances, 594; the judiciary, 594-595; powers 
of Congress, 596-598; slave trade and slavery, 
597-598; sectionalism, 598; committees on 
detail and on style, 600; the finished work, 600. 

Convicts, importation, 33, 62, 321. 

Conway, General Henry, on service in America, 
471. 

Conway, Thomas, inspector-general, 485. 

Conway Cabal, 485. 

Coode, John, Protestant leader in Maryland, 199, 
200. 

Corn, cultivated by Indians, 50; in Virginia, 57, 
64; in New England, loi; in North Carolina, 
138; in South Carolina, 141. 

Cornbury, Lord, misgovernment in New York, 
297. 

Cornwallis, Lord, in New Jersey, 479, 480; war m 
South, 494; campaign in North Carolina, 500; 
campaign in the Carolinas, 502-503; retires to 



Virgmia, 503; campaign in Virginia, 307; at 
Yorktown, 507; surrenders, 508. 

Coronado, e.xplorer, 24. 

Cortes, conquest of Mexico, 22, 24. 

Cosby, governor of New York, Zenger case, 299. 

Cotton, John, minister in Massachusetts, 99, 105- 
plan of church government, 107; friendly to 
Mrs. Hutchinson, 114. 

Council, English, powers, 6, 7, 8, see Privy 
Council; colonial, in Virginia, 59, 60, 326, 342; 
m Pennsylvania, 173; in colonies generally' 
240 (powers), 342 (comparison with House of 
Lords); in Massachusetts, 269, 271, 428, 431; 
in New York, 298 (power to amend money 
bills), 342; in the South, power, 327; com- 
panson with House of Lords, 342; under act 
of 1774 in Massachusetts, 428, 431; in state 
constitutions, 550. 

Council for Foreign Plantations, appointed by 
Charles II, 185. 

Council for New England, 88; grant to Pilgrims, 
94; grants in Massachusetts, 95; grant to 
Massachusetts Bay Company, 97; Saybrook 
grant, 121. 

Country party, in England, 6; in Massachusetts, 
272. 

County, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60, 61, 82; 
in Massachusetts, 106; in New York, 157. 

County government, American like English, 343; 
new American ideas, 350. 

Coureurs de bois, in fur trade, 215. 

Court of assizes, in New York, 158. 

Courten, Sir William, colonizer, 38. 

Courts, in England, 7, 232; in the colonies, ap- 
pointment, 240; power to declare laws un- 
constitutional, 548, 595; under Articles of 
Confederation, 562, 563; federal, 594. See 
Judges. 

Courts of admiralty, 241; jurisdiction, 403. 

Cowpens, battle, 503. 

Coxe, Daniel, sends vessel to the Mississippi, 220. 

Cranston, Samuel, governor of Rhode Island, 268. 

Craven, Lord, Carolina proprietor, 136. 

Criminals, transported, 33, 321; in Virginia, 62. 

Croghan, George, backwoods leader, 293; agent 
of Ohio Company, 369. 

Cromwell, Oliver, rules England, 74, 132, 133; 
policy in Maryland, 77; administration, 132, 
133; takes Acadia and Jamaica, 133; plans 
against New Netherland, 133, 152; policy 
toward Dutch, 152, 180; cited, 9. 

Crown Point, French outpost, 367, 368, 373; 
abandoned by French, 384; taken by Allen, 
446. 

Cuba, Spanish colony, 21; taken by British, 385; 
restored, 386. 

Culloden, battle, 363. _ 

Culpeper, Lord, Virginia grant, 81; governor 
of Virginia, 84; grant of Northern Neck, 320. 

Cumberland valley, Scotch-Irish in, 291. 

Currency, regulated by Parliament, 237, 405; 
under Confederation, 569. 

Currency Act of 1764, 405. 

Customs duties, levied by Parliament, 183, 403, 
417, 423; by colonial legislatures, 237, 557; 
controlled by states, 562. 

Cutler, Manasseh, agent of Ohio Company, 576. 
577- 

Cutler, Timothy, president of Yale College, con- 
verted to Anglican Church, 277. 



INDEX 



XIX 



Dale, Sir Thomas, governor of Virginia, 56. 

Davenport, John, founder of New Haven, 122. 

Davies, Samuel, appeals for religious toleration, 
331- 

Deane, Silas, agent of Congress in Paris, 448; 
commissioner to France, 489. 

Debtor class, 247; after the Revolution, 580. 

Debts, in peace negotiations, 521. 

"Declaration and Resolves" of first Continental 
Congress, 434. 

Declaration of Independence, influence of Revo- 
lution of 1688, 194; on disallowance of 
colonial laws, 239; adopted, 455; political 
philosophy, 455; list of grievances, 456; 
nationality of signers, 533. 

Declaratory Act of 1766, 411. 

De Grasse, Admiral, commander of French fleet, 
Sos; Yorktown campaign, 507, SoS. 

De Lanceys, in New York, intermarriages, 284. 

Delaware, Dutch and Swedss in, 146, 150, 151; 
claimed by Duke of York, 155; grant to Penn, 
169, 170; government, 173; population, 174- 
17s, 281; manufactures, 294; attitude on in- 
dependence, 454, 455; state constitution, 462- 
463, 547-551; delegates in constitutional con- 
vention, 587; in small-state group, 592; ratiHes 
federal Constitution, 604. 

Delaware, Lord, governor of Virginia, 56. 

Delaware River and valley, importance, 143; 
Dutch settlers, 146; Swedish settlement, 150; 
Scotch-Irish settlers, 291; controlled by British 
navy, 481. 

De Leon, Ponce, explorer, 22. 

Demarcation, papal line of, 20. 

Democracy, advocated by John Wise, 275; influ- 
ence of frontier conditions, 348, 354, 355; in 
United States, 547, 548, ssij struggle for, 554; 
in relation to the Constitution, 612. 

Denmark, in seventeenth century, 17. 

De Soto, explorer, 23. 

d'Estaing, Admiral, commands fleet, 492; at- 
tempt on Newport, 493; leaves Savannah, 493. 

Detroit, founded, 221; French post, 358, 368; 
British trading post, 498; held by British, 527. 

d'lberville, Le Moyne, founds Biloxi, 211, 220. 

Dickinson, John, criticizes the Townshend Acts, 
418; character and views, 41S; attitude toward 
Massachusetts in 1774, 432; opinion of military 
resistance, 443; hopes for reconciliation, 450; 
pleads for delay, 453; committees on confed- 
eration and foreign alliances, 45).; opposes im- 
mediate declaration of independence, 454, 455; 
gentleman-farmer, 534; committee on confed- 
eration, 559; in constitutional convention, 5S7. 

Dinwiddle, Robert, governor of Virginia, sends 
mission to Ohio country, 370-371. 

Disallowance of colonial laws, 238. 

Divine right, theory of, 7. 

Dominion of New England, 189; ended, 195. 

Dongan, Thornas, governor of New York, i6i, 196; 
wins Iroquois, 216. 

Dorchester Heights, fortified, 445. 

Downing, Sir George, career and influence, i8r, 
182. 

Drake, Francis, exploits, 15, 27, 30. 

Dress, colonial, 266, 342. 

Duane, pleads for delay, 453. 

Dublin, Anglican Archbishop of, cited, 290. 

Dudley, Joseph, president of New England, 187; 
assoc::\ted v,rith Andros, 190, 191; governor of 



Massachusetts, 253, 269; visits to England, 253; 
speakership question, 271. 

Dudley, Thomas, colonizer, 98. 

Duke's Laws, in New York, 158. 

Dulany, Daniel, of Maryland, career, 329. 

Dummer, Jeremiah, defends New England 
charters, 268. 

Dunk, George, president of the Board of Trade, 
231. 

Dunmore, Lord, governor of Virginia, 439; op- 
poses revolution, 448; violence, 453. 

Duquesne, Governor, builds forts, 370. 

Durham, palatinate of, 68. 

Dutch, rebellion against Philip II, 14; relations 
with England, 14, i8, 125, 216; in seventeenth 
century, 17; Eastern trade, 32, 144; in 
Connecticut, 120, 146; in New Nethcrland, 144- 
153; alliance with Iroquois, 150; alliance of 
1668, 216; commercial rivalry, 359, 360; 
loans to United States, 464; relations with 
Great Britain, 504; aid m Revolution, 504; 
treaty with United States, 514. 

Dutch colonists, in New Netherland, 144, 145, 
146; in New Sweden, 151; in New York, 156, 
157, 160, 284, 294, 3.to; in New Jersey, 163; in 
Pennsylvania and Delaware, 174; in Berkshire 
region, 259; in New York city, 294. 

Dutch East India Company, exploration, 144. 

Dutch Guiana, English colony, 41. 

Dutch language in New York, 284, 340. 

Dutch Protestants, rebellion, 14; some go to 
England, 3, 18, 91. 

Dutch Reformed Church, in New Netherland, 
148; in New York, 159, 305; connection with 
Netherlands, 251. 

Dutch Republic, war with Great Britain (1781), 
504. 

Dutch West India Company, aims, 144; organ- 
ization, 147. 

East Florida, British province, 390. 

East India Company (English), chartered, 4; 
control in India and China, 233; recovers 
Madras, 365; government of India, 38S; mo- 
nopoly of the China trade, 388; Tea Act of 
1773, 426; tea ships, 426-427. 

East New Jersey, 164, 165; reunited, 204; con- 
flicting grants, 283. 

Eastland Company, chartered. 4. 

Eaton, Theophilus, founder of New Haven, 122, 

Economic theories, sevei ''eenth-centurj', 32, 17S- 
179; in Restoration era, 132, 135. 

Education, in England, 13; in Massachusetts, 
ro8; in New Netherland, 149; in New Eng- 
land, 277; in middle colonies, 306; in South, 
333-335; in states, 554-555; in Ordinance of 
1787, 57S. 

Edwards, Jonathan, character and achievements, 
276, 277; writings, 278. 

Eliot, John, missionary, 125. 

Elizabeth, Queen, increases royal power, 6; re- 
lations with Spain, 14, 15; aids Huguenots, is; 
colonial enterprise. 34, 35. 

Elizabethan seamen, 27. 

Ellsworth, Oliver, member Confederation Congress, 
566; delegate in constitutional convention, 
586; urges equal representation in Senate, 591- 
592. 

Emancipation movement, after the Revolution, 
554- 



XX 



INDEX 



England, mother country, i; in 1606, 2; do- 
minions, 2; relations with Scotland, 2, 226; 
relations with Ireland, 2, 182, 227; population, 
2; economic interests, 3-5; landlords, 4; social 
classes, 3-S, 9', trade, 4, 32, 33, 132-13S, i79- 
i8s, 243-247, 261; government, 6-9, 227-232; 
churches, 10-12; civilization in 1606, 12; edu- 
cation, 13; international relations in seven- 
teenth century, 13-18; relations with Spain, 
14, 15, 27-28, 133, 142, 361; with France, 15, 
18, 133, 207, 208, 216-224, 360-367; with 
Russia, 17; with Denmark, 17; with Sweden, 
17, 216; with Holland, or Netherlands, 18, 
I2S, 133, 152-153, 216; sea power foimded, 15; 
chief rivals, 18, 207; outlook on America, 20; 
claim to North America, 26; early slave trade, 
27; motives of colonization, 31-34, 42-43, 88, 
92, 100, 133-136; early colonies, 34-42; island 
colonies, 39-40; under Cromwell, 74; in Resto- 
ration era, 131-134; sea power increased, 132- 
133; colonial policies of the Restoration, 13s, 
181-185; war with Holland (1652), 152; im- 
perialism, seventeenth-century, 178-191; co- 
lonial trade regulations, 179-185; Revolution 
of i688, 192-205 (see Revolution of 1688); 
alliance of 1668, 216; King William's War, 217- 
219; Queen Anne's War, 220-224; Act of 
Union, 226; constitutional changes after 1688, 
227-^229, 232; colonial empire, 233-242; diffi- 
culties of overseas administration, 242; trade 
with colonies, 243-247; church influence on 
colonies, 248-252; intellectual relations with 
colonies, 252-235; Protestant refugees in, 286, 
287; German refugees near London, 287; 
claims Ohio valley, 359. See Parliament, and 
Great Britain. 

English and American ways, chapter on conditions 
in 1750, 338-355- 

English colonists, predominant race in Thirteen 
Colonies, 130, 131, 340, 341; in Pennsylvania, 
174-175; majority not in Anglican Church, 248; 
predominant in New York, 2S4; La the South, 
318, 319; in trans-Allegheny trade, 357, 369, 
389; in United States, 532, 533. See name of 
each colony. 

Engljsh fashions, followed, 266, 342. 

English language, in Thirteen Colonies, 340, 341; 
survival of obsolete forms in America, 348. 

English law, in America, 344-347. 

English literature in America, 254, 341. 

English merchants. See Merchants. 

English population, predominates in United 
States, 532, 533. See English colonists. 

English ships, defined, 182. 

English traders, in the West, 80, 161, 293, 315, 
357, 369, 389- 

Englishmen, rights of, 7, 46; attitude toward 
Revolution, 470-471; opinion after Yorktown, 
509- 

Enumerated articles, in Navigation Acts, 182, 183; 
list extended, 235; modified, 236. 

Episcopal Church, in United States, 533. 553- 
See Anglican Church. 

Episcopal system, ii. 

Episcopalians, in Boston, 273; reorganized, SS3; 
first American bishop, 553. 

Erie (Pa.), French fort, 370. 

Erskine, on law of libel, 351. 

Eugene, Prince, in Queen Anne's War, 221. 

European background of American history, i. 



E.TCCutive authority, weakened in new govern., 
ments, 463; provisions concerning in consti- 
tutional convention, 592-593. See Governor. 

Executive council, in state constitutions, 550. 

Executive departments, under Confederation, 565. 

Factors, defined, 246. 
Fairfax, Lord, landed proprietor, 320. 
Falmouth (Maine), attacked in 1776, 447. 
Family Compact, of 1733, 362; of 1761, 385. 
Faneuil, Peter, IJoston merchant, 263. 
Faneuil Hall, gift of Peter Faneuil, 263. 
Farmers, in England, 3, 5; status in United 
States, 535; in New England, 538; in the 
West, 543; in the interior, discontent after the 
Revolution, 579, 580. See Agriculture. 
Fashions, influence of English, 266, 342. 
Fauquier, governor of Virginia, intellectual influ- 
ence, 335; opinion of Patrick Henry, 407. 
Federal Convention of 1787, 584-600. See Con- 
vention. 
Federal domain, 574. 

Federal party, 603; in Pennsylvania, 604-606; 
in Massachusetts, 607; in New York. 608; in 
Virginia, 608-609; in First Congress, 610. 
Federal union, development, 555-563. 
Federalist, The, essays, 611. 
Fenwick, proprietor West New Jersey, 164. 
Ferdinand of Spain, 14. 
Ferguson, Major Patrick, guerrilla leader, 494; 

Kings Mountain campaign, 500. 
Finance, colonial 241. 
Finance committee of Congress, 462. 
Finances of United States, controlled by Congress, 
460, 462, 502, 565; paper money, 464, 569; 
loans, 464, 515, 523; requisition system, 568. 
Findley, William, Anti-Federalist leader, 605. 
Finns, in New Sweden, 151; in Pennsylvania and 

Delaware, 174. 
Fisheries, importance to England, 32, 33; of New 
England, loi, 102-103, 260; French, near 
Louisburg, 364; in peace negotiations, 520; 
after the Revolution, 536. 
Fishermen visit Newfoundland, 24, 26. 
Fitzherbert, peace commissioner, 517. 
Fitzhugh, William, a typical planter, 79. 
Five Nations, 150. See Iroquois. 
Fletcher, Benjamin, governor of New York, 218. 
Florida, explored, 21, 22; colonized, 24; fur 
trade, 215; in Queen Anne's War, 222; ceded 
to British, 386; under British rule, 388, 390; 
no revolutionary spirit, 446; secret agreement 
concerning, 519; regained by Spain, 520, 522. 
Fontaine, Peter, views on slavery, 322. 
Forbes, (General, takes Fort Duquesne, 382, 383. 
Foreign affairs department, with single head, 502. 
Foreign officers in the Revolution, 466. 
Fort Casimir, Dutch post, 151. 
Fort Duquesne, built, 371; Braddock's expedition, 

373; taken by British, 382. 
Fort Edward, established, 373; taken by British 

in 1777, 483. 
Fort Frontenac, French post, 358, 368; taken by 

British, 382, 383. 
Fort Le Boeuf, Washington at, 371. 
Fort Orange, Dutch settlement, 146; Iroquois 

fur trade, 146, 156; renamed Albany, 157. 
Fort Pitt, settlements near, 496. 
Fort St. Louis, in Illinois, 211. 
Fort Schuyler, siege in 1777, 482, 483. 



INDEX 



XXI 



Fort Stanwix, treaty, 416; siege in 1777, 482. 

Fort William Henry, established, 373; captured, 
381. 

Fox, Charles James, character and leadership, 471; 
in ministry of 1782, 510; foreign secretary, 
attitude in peace negotiations, 51G; resigns, 
517; in power, directs treaty of peace, 524. 

Fox, George, dissenter, 132; founder of Quakers, 
167, 168. 

Frame of Government, Pennsylvania, 172. 

France, power, 15-16; relations with England, 
IS, i8, 133, 207, 208, 216-224, 360-367; ex- 
plorations in North America, 24-25; American 
colonies, 25, 207-215, see New France, etc.; 
colonial policy, 212-215; King William's War, 
2i7-2ig; Spanish succession, 220; Queen 
Anne's War, 220-224; relations with Germany, 
285; pioneers in trans-Allegheny region, 358; 
claims Ohio valley, 359, 369; Family Compact, 
362, 385; War of the Austrian Succession, 362- 
36s; points in dispute with the British, 367- 
371; French and Indian War with the British, 
372-386; loans to United States, 464; other 
aid to America, 467, 469, 485, 487, 490, 491- 
relations with Great Britain, 469; first aid to 
United States, 485; conditions in 1777, 486; 
policy of secret aid, 487; alliance with United 
States, 490, 491; Ueet at Yorktown, 507, 508; 
attitude in peace negotiations, 515; attitude 
on claims to West, 518-519; treaty of peace 
with Great Britain (1783), 522; new loan to 
United States, 523; interested in state consti- 
tutions, 547; consular convention with United 
States, 570. 

Francis I of France, 25. 

Frankfort Land Company, 174, 175. 

Franklin, proposed state, 529. 

Franklin, Benjamin, training as colonial agent, 
243; Royal Society, 253; influenced by Euro- 
pean writers, 254, 255; early career in Phila- 
delphia, 254; fears establishment of German 
language, 288; printer, 295; opposes proprie- 
tary rule and tries to secure royal government 
for Pennsylvania, 301, 394; founds University 
of Pennsylvania, 307; intellectual achievements, 
308; helps Braddock, 373; Albany plan of 
Union, 376; confidence in colonial growth, 392; 
leadership, 392; opinion concerning America's 
place in British Empire, 393; opinion of George 
III, 399; attitude on Stamp Act, 405; testi- 
mony before the House of Commons, 411; on 
the constitution of the empire, 414; new colony 
on the Ohio, 416; opinion on prospects in 1768, 
422; opinion of Boston Tea Party, 427; deputy 
postmaster-general for the colonies, 430, 431; 
Hutchinson letters, 430-431; envoy of Congress 
to Canada, 446; favors independence, 450; 
committee on Declaration of Independence, 
453; character and contribution to victory, 
468, 489; suggests combination of Irishmen and 
Americans, 469; envoy at Paris, 488-489; 
propaganda for funds and recognition, 489; 
allays French irritation, 506; negotiations with 
Hartley, _ 512; with Shelburne, 512; peace 
commissioner, 513; proposes cession of Canada 
to United States, 516; ignores instructions, 
S19; negotiates concerning private debts, 521; 
pacifies Vergennes, 523; advice by Price, 527; 
favors religious liberty, 551, 552; interest in 
colonial federation, 557; new plan of Union, 



558; president of Pennsylvania council, 566; 
commissioner to negotiate commercial treaties, 
57°; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; 
delegate in constitutional convention, influence, 
S86, 587; cited, 393, 414-415, 427, 431, 482, 
S05, 527, 539- 

rrankhn, Governor, cited, 294. 

Frederick the Great, in War of the Austrian 
Succession, 363, 365; in Seven Years' War. 
379, 381, 384. 

Freedom of the press, Zenger case, 299; in Eng- 
land and America, 351; in state constitutions, 
55°; m federal constitution, 611. 

Freeman's Farm, battles, 484. 

Freemen, or voters, of Massachusetts, 103, 104, 
105; in Connecticut, 122; in Pennsylvania, 172. 

trench and Indian War, 371-386; opposing 
forces, 375; events of 1756, 379; of 1757, 381; 
of 1758, 382; of 1759, 383-384; of 1760-1762, 
384-385; treaty of peace, 386. 

French colonists, in New Amsterdam, 145; in 
Pennsylvania, 175; in New York city, 294; 
in Virginia, 317. See Huguenots. 

French Creek, French fort, 370. 

French Protestants. Sec Huguenots. 

Friends, Society of, 167. 

Frontenac, Count, governor of New France, 209, 
211; and Iroquois, 215; second governorship, 
218; policy, 218; defends Quebec, 219; attacks 
Iroquois, 219. 

Frontier, influence of, 282, 319, 324, 354, 355. 

Frontiersmen, in the Revolution, 497; at Kings 
Mountain, 500; western, 544-545. See Back 
country. 

Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, 140. 

Fundamental law, English and American ideas, 
232. 

Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, 121. 

Fur trade, in Virginia, 80, 215, 221; in Plymouth, 
94; in South Carolina, 141; in New Nether- 
land, 145, 146; in New York, 160-161, 293, 538; 
Iroquois, 161, 215, 368; English and French 
rivalry, 161, 215, 293, 315, 368; of New France, 
2og, 210, 215; in South, 215; of Pennsylvania, 
293; in Southwest, 315; in West, 358, 368, 498. 

Gage, General, governor of Massachusetts, 431; 

government opposed, 442; retires, 445. 
Galissonifere, Marquis de la, claims Ohio valley, 

369- 
Galloway, Joseph, Pennsylvania conservative, 432; 

in first Continental Congress, proposes imperial 

constitution, 434; interest in colonial federation, 

557; plan of Union, 557- 
Galvez, conquests in Southwest, 500. 
Caspee affair, 425. 
Gates, Gen. Horatio, member Board of War, 462, 

485; rival of Washington, 467; Saratoga 

campaign, 484; at Camden, 494. 
Gates, Sir Thomas, governor of Virginia, 56. 
General Court, legislature of Massachusetts, 102, 

103. 
Gentlemen, social class in England, 3, 9; in 

America, 62, 342, 348, 534. 
Genuine Information, Martin's essay, 611. 
George I, reduction of power, 228. 
George II, reduction of power, 228, 379; territory 

in Hanover, 371; interests, 379. 
George III, accession, 385, 397; character and 

political theories, 398-399; conflict with the 



xxu 



INDEX 



old Whig machine, 399; builds up party of 
" King's Friends," 401; repeal of Stamp Act, 
414; cited on tea tax, 423; attacks colonies, 
448; attacked b>; Declaration of Independence, 
456; responsibility for weakness of British 
government, 472; after Yorktown, 509; re- 
ceives John Adams as minister, 571. 

Georgetown (S. C), settled, 315- 

Georgia, founded, 31s; slavery, 316; products, 
320; war with Spain, 362; loyalists, 441; 
state constitution, 462-463, 547-SSi; con- 
quered by British, 493; conditions after the 
Revolution, 541; state institution of higher 
learning, 555; in large-state group, 590; favors 
slave trade, 598; ratifies federal Constitution, 
604. See South, and Thirteen Colonies. 

Germain. Lord George, part in the Saratoga 
campaign, 469, 482; character and control 
of British army, 472; plan for 1777, 480. 

German colonists, in Pennsylvania, 17s, 176, 288, 
293. 303. 303, 341; sects in America, 251, 305, 
353; in Newport, 263; motives for emigration, 
285-287; in England, 287; in New York, 287, 
482, 496, 497; in North Carolina, 287, 319; 
jn New Jersey, 288; in Maryland, 288, 319; 
in Virginia, 288, 317, 319, 609; influence in 
America, 288; buffer communities, 291; pros- 
perous farmers, 293, 323; manufactures, 294; 
printers, 295; churches, 305; education, 306; 
in Georgia, 315; in South Carolina, 318, 
319; in Thirteen Colonies, 341; in Mohawk 
valley, 287, 482, 496, 497; immigrants in United 
States, S32; in Pennsylvania convention, 60s; 
attitude toward federal Constitution (in Vir- 
ginia), 609. 

German confederation of 1815, compared with 
Articles of Confederation, 560. 

German Empire, armed neutrality, 504. 

German language, in colonies, 288, 341; in the 
states, 532. 

German Reformed Churches, in middle colonies, 

SOS- 
German sects, in American colonies, 251, 305, 353; 
radical Protestantism, 353. 

German soldiers supplied to British, 444; in New 
Jersey, 479; with Burgoyne, 482, 483; on the 
American side, 482, 497. 

Germanna (Va.), founded, 317. 

Germantown (Pa.), founded, 175; manufactures, 
294; battle, 481. 

Germany, in seventeenth century, 16; in seven- 
teenth and eighteenth centuries, 285; suffering 
from war, 285; relations with France, 285; 
religious troubles, 286; the great migration, 286. 

Gerry, Elbridge, opposes Constitution, 607; op- 
poses "e.xcess of democracy," 613. 

Gibraltar, acquired by Great Britain, 223, 361; 
importance in control of trade routes, 360. 

Gilbert. Raleigh, in Plymouth Company, 45. 

Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, colonizer, 34. 

Gist, Christopher, agent of Ohio Company, 369; 
travels with Washington, 371. 

Glen, governor of South Carolina, cited, 326. 

Gold, from Spanish America, 22; English search 
for, 32. 

Gooch, governor of Virginia, religious policy, 331. 

Gorges, Sir Ferdinando, colonizer, 38, 39, 41, 42; 
Council for New England, 87-88; Maine, 88; 
criticizes Massachusetts, no. 

Gorton, Samuel, foimds Warwick, 118. 



Government, of England, 6-9, 227-232; of Great 
Britain, 228-232, 379, 397-398; of New France, 
209; of the colonies, see Colonial government; 
of the states, 547-551; of the United States, 
see Continental Congress, Confederation, and 
Constitution; territorial, 576-578. See Au- 
tocracy, Democracy, Representative, Local 
government, etc. 

Governor, in Virginia, 59, 60, 325, 326; in Plym- 
outh, 94; in Massachusetts, 103, 269-272; 
e.xpected to enforce Acts of Trade, 184, 235; 
royal instructions to, 238; imperial agent, 240; 
veto power, 240; control by colonies, salary, 
241, see Governor's salary; in Connecticut and 
Rhode Island, 267-268; in Maryland, 325; 
in the South, 327; representative of the king, 
342; in states, authority weakened, 463; in 
state constitutions, 5S0-5S1; election, 551; of 
Northv.'est Territory, 577. 

Governor's salary, 241; in Massachusetts, 270; 
New York, 298; Pennsylvania, 300; Virginia, 
Maryland, and the Carolinas, 325, 326; proposal 
to pay by parliamentary tax, 404. 

Grafton, Duke of, ministry, 415. 

Granville, Lord, landed proprietor, 320. 

Grasse, Admiral De, commander of French fleet, 
505; Y'orktown campaign, 507, 508. 

Graves, Admiral, fights De Grasse, 508. 

Great Awakening, influence of Whitefield, 252; 
main account, 276, 277; Presbyterians, 306; 
in Virginia, 331. 

Great Britain, in Queen Anne's War, 222-224; 
created by Act of Union, 226; government, 
228-232, 379, 397-398; overseas empire, 233; 
control of colonies, 233-242, 391; policy as to 
commerce and sea power, 359-360; relations 
v/ith Spain, 361, 362, 374, 385, 469, 488; Anglo- 
Spanish War of 1739, 362; war with France, 
363-365; claims Ohio valley, 368-371; policy 
in 1754, 371; French and Indian War, 372-386; 
alliance with Prussia, 374; treaty of 1763, 386; 
imperial problems and policies (i 760-1766), 
38S-412; Proclamation of 1763, 300; plans for 
colonial reorganiz.ition, 391; old causes of 
friction with colonies, 393; government under 
Hanoverian kings, 397-398; politics under 
George III. 398-401; new American policies, 
402-412; Stamp Act. 404-411; lack of con- 
structive statesmanship, 414; Townshend Acts, 
417; Coercive Acts, 427-430, 438; American 
Revolution, 437-524, see Revolution; no large 
army, 444; advantages in Revolutionary War, 
459; handicapped by opposition of European 
powers, 469; British opposition to policy of 
coercing colonies, 470-471; governmental 
weakness, 471-472; the fighting services 
in Revolutionary War, 472: effect of 
French alliance with United States, 492; war 
with Spain (1779), 500; opposed by neutral 
powers, s°A'' ^ar with the Dutch, 504; peace 
with United States, 512, 515-524; treaties of 
1782 and 1783, 522-524; holds posts in northern 
United States, 527; relations with United 
States, 571-572. See England, and Parliament. 

Great Case of Liberty of Conscience, 168. 

"Great commoner," 415. See Pitt. 

Great Lakes, in dispute between France and 
Great Britain, 368. 

Great migration, to New England, 98; from 
Germany, 286. 



INDEX 



XXUl 



Great Valley of Virginia, defined, 49; settled, 31S, 
324; churches and missionary preachers, 331; 
attitude toward Constitution, 609. 

Green Bay, French post, 358; held by British, 527. 

Green Mountain pioneers, Whigs, 497. 

Greene, Gen. Nathanael, quartermaster-general, 
46s; military ability, 466; campaign in the 
South, 502-503. 

Grenville, George, factional leader, 400; character 
and policy, 402; Stamp Act, 405; ministry 
ends, 409; argues for sovereignty of Parliament, 
410. 

Grenville, Sir Richard, exploits, 35, 36. 

Grotius, Hugo, Dutch author, 17; read by Ameri- 
cans, 341. 

Guadeloupe, taken by British, 384; restored, 386. 

Guerrilla leaders, in South, 494. 

Guiana, English colony, 40-41. 

Guild system, breakdown, 4. 

Guilford Courthouse, battle, 503. 

Habeas Corpus Act, 346, 347; in Ordinance of 
1787, 578. 

Habitants, in New France, 214. 

Haiti, Spanish colony, 21. 

Hakluyt, Richard, geographer, influence, 31; 
inap, 28-29; member Virginia Company, 45; 
cited, 26, 31. 

Half-Way Covenant, adopted, 273. 

Halifax, founded. 367. 

Halifax, Earl of, president Board of Trade, 231. 

Hals, Dutch painter, 17. 

Hamilton, Alexander, opposition to up-state po- 
litical machine, 539; member Confederation 
Congress, 566; opposes New York Trespass 
Act, 572; urges revision of Articles of Con- 
federation, 584; proposes convention at Phila- 
delphia, 58s; delegate in constitutional con- 
vention, 587; "nationalist leader, 589; plan of 
constitution, 591; plan for asingle executive, 
592; Committee on Style, 600; Federal leader, 
608; author of The Federalist, 611. 

Hamilton, Andrew, defends Zenger, 299; speaker 
Pennsylvania assembly, 300; cited, 300. 

Hamilton, Col. Henry, promotes border warfare, 
498; contest with Clark, 499. 

Hancock, John, sloop Liberty seized, 419; presi- 
dent second Continental Congress, 442; presi- 
dent Massachusetts state convention, attitude 
toward Constitution, 607. 

Hanover, under George H, 371; in Seven Years' 
War, 374, 381. 

Hanoverian kings, government, 397, 398. 

Hapsburg claim to Spain, 219, 220. 

Harcourt, Robert, colonizer, 41. 

Harrower, John, indentured servant, 321. 

Hartford, founded, 121. 

Hartley, David, negotiations for peace, 512; 
peace commissioner under Fox, 524; interest 
m American problems, 527. 

Harvard, John, gift to college, 109. 

Han'ard College, 109; under liberal control, 375; 
protest against Great Awakening, 277; develop- 
ment, 278. 

Harvey, Capt. John, governor of Virginia, 60. 

Hat manufacture, restricted in colonies, 236. 

Hawkins, Capt. John, exploits, 15, 27- 

Hawkins, William, visits Brazil, 26. 

Haynes. John, founder of Connecticut, 120. 

Head right system, 63. 



Heath, Sir Robert, patent or charter for Carolina, 

41, 136. 
Hemp, bounties, 402. 
Henderson, Richard, founder of Kentucky, 496, 

541. 
Henrico County (Va.), large estates, 320. 
Henry, Patrick, back-country farm, 324; leader of 
back-country party, 330; Parson's Cause, 395; 
opposes Stamp Act, 406-407; advocates com- 
mittee of correspondence, 425; in first Conti- 
nental Congress, 433, 434; favors state support 
of church, 552; plan of Union, 557; state 
politics, 566; opposes Jay's Spanish policy, 574; 
Anti-Federalist. 603, 609; arguments against 
Constitution, 609. 

Henry VH, sends out Cabot, 26. 

Henry VIII, increases royal power, 6; relations 
with Spain, 14. 

Henry IV of France, 16, 207. 

Herkimer, General, at Oriskany, 483; a German 
Whig 532. 

Hesse, Landgrave of, supplies soldiers to British, 
444. 

High church party, in Anglican Church, 96; in 
South Carolina, 313. 

Hillsborough, Lord, colonial secretary, 416; 
opinion of Letters from a Farmer, 419; contest 
with Massachusetts assembly, 421. 

Hobbes, Thomas, philosopher, 132. 

Holdemesse, Lord, circular to colonial governors, 
370. 

Holland, or the Netherlands, under Philip II, 14; 
in seventeenth century, 17; relations with 
England, 18, 133, 152, 153; Pilgrims in, 92; 
in America, 144; war with England (1652), 152; 
relations with Great Britain, 469. See Dutch. 

Holmes v. Walton, cited, 548. 

Holt, Chief -Justice, decision on Maryland, 202. 

Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, 
disrupted, 285; compared with Articles of 
Confederation. 560. 

Honduras, English colony, 41. 

Hooker, authority on natural rights, 344. 

Hooker, Thomas, founder of Connecticut, 120. 

Hopkins, Stephen, opposes Stamp Act, 406. 

Housatonic valley, settled, 259. 

House. Sec Commons, Lords, Burgesses, Assem- 
bly, etc. 

House of Hope, Dutch colony, 120, 146. 

Howard of Effingham, Lord, governor of Virginia, 
84. 

Howe, General (Lord), killed at Ticonderoga, 382; 
monument by Massachusetts, 392. 

Howe, General Sir William, at Bunker Hill, 44; 
leaves Boston, 44s; failure to cooperate in 
Saratoga campaign, 469; military ability, 473; 
campaign of 1776, 478-480; attempted diplo- 
macy, 478; campaign of 1777, 480-4S2; retires, 
492. 

Howe, Lord, naval commander, 478; attempted 
diplomacy, 478; at Newport, 493. 

Hudson,' Henry, explorer, 144. 

Hudson Bay, explored by Hudson, 144; French 
interests, 212; cession by France to Great 
Britain, 224. 

Hudson River and valley, importance, 143; ex- 
plored by Hudson, 144; Dutch settlers, 146; 
campaign of 1776, 478; campaign of 1777, 483- 
484. 

Hudson's Bay Company, formed, 134. 



XXIV 



INDEX 



Huguenots, or French Protestants, in France, 15- 
16, 96; in Florida, 24; in Carolina, 25; in 
South Carolina, 141, 317, 332; excluded from 
French colonies, 213; churches in America, 251; 
in Newport, 263; in Virginia, 317. 

Hundred Associates, of New France, 207, 209. 

Hunter, Robert, governor of New York, promotes 
immigration of Germans, 2S7; proposes tax- 
ation by Parliament, 298; intellectual character, 
307; appoints Colden, 30S. 

Hutchinson, Anne, in Massachusetts, 113; ban- 
ished, 114; followers in Portsmouth and New- 
port, 117, 118. 

Hutchinson, Thomas, house attacked, 409; view 
of Adams, 420; governor of Massachusetts, 
424; character, career, and political views, 424; 
tea ships, 427; letters secured by Franklin, 
430; opposed by Franklin, 431; goes to Eng- 
land, 431; cited, 258. 

Hyde, Edward. See Clarendon. 

Hyde, Lawrence, colonizer, 41. 

Iber%'ille, Le Moyne d', founds Biloxi, 211, 220. 

Illinois, veto power in council of revision, 550. 

Illinois country, French in, 2H, 358; conquered by 
Clark, 499; county of Virginia, 499; British 
influence in, 527.^ 

Imperialism, English, seventeenth-century, 182- 
191; development, 185; principles, 187; re- 
organization of colonial governments 1685- 
1688, 18S-192; reorganization after 1688, 200- 
204; eighteenth-century, 226, 233-242, 388- 
412; in 1760-1766, 38S-412; plans for colonial 
reorganization, 391; friction with colonies, 393; 
need of imperial statesmanship, 397; Gren- 
ville's policy, 403-405; Stamp Act, 404-412. 

Indentured servants, in Virginia, 62; in Mary- 
land, 71; in Pennsylvania, 172; in New Eng- 
land, 266; in middle colonies, 292; in the tide- 
water, 321; in United States, 535. 

India, English and French "factories" in, 360; 
British predominance, 386; governed by East 
India Company, 388. 

Indiana, British influence in, 527. 

Indians, under Spanish rule, 22; English mission- 
ary activity, 34, 125;^ in Virginia, 49-51, 58, 
62, 63, 82, 439; political organization, 49, 50; 
customs. 50; agriculture, 50; in Maryland, 70; 
Pequot War, 123; in New England, 123, 124, 
128; King Philip's War, 128; in New Nether- 
land, 150; influence of Andros, 190; La Salle's 
plans, 211; French brandy, 212; fur trade, 
215, 293, see Fur trade; under Frontenac, 218; 
in Maine, 258; in the Carolinas, 313; trans- 
AUogheny trade, 357, 369; in French and 
Indian War, 373, 376; in the West, 389, 390, 
528; Pontiac's War, 390; Lord Dunmore's 
War, 439; aid to British in Revolutionary War, 
444, 483, 497, 408; under St. Leger, 4S3; 
policy in Revolution, 497; Indian problem 
under the Confederation, 528. See Iroquois. 

Indigo, in South Carolina and Georgia, 320. 

Inflation, in New England, 265; in Massachusetts, 
272; Continental currency, 464; under the 
Confederation, 569, 5S1. 

Inns of Court, American lawyers trained in, 253, 
334. 346. 

Intendant, oflTicer of New France, 209. 

Interstate commerce, under Confederation, 571; 
Congress given power to regulate, 597. 



Inviiicible Armada, 15, 30. 

Ipswich, opposes Andros taxation, 191. 

Ireland, colonized, 2, 289; relation to England, 2, 
182, 227; Irish ships not foreign, 182; regu- 
lation of trade with colonies, 183; war between 
James II and William III, 217; export of 
woolens prohibited, 227; trade with New 
England, 262: German refugees, 287; economic 
grievances, 290; influence on American practices 
and ideals, 348; assistance to America, 469; 
relations with Great Britain, 469; invites New 
England trade, 537. 

Irish colonists, in Virginia, 77; in American 
colonies, 135, 251, 252; in South Carolina, 141; 
in Pennsylvania, 175; in Newport, 263; causes 
of emigration, 289; in Revolutionary army, 
469; frontier Whigs, 497; immigrants in United 
States, 532. See Scotch-Irish. 

Iron manufacture, restricted in colonies, 236. 

Iroquois, alliance with Dutch, 150; under English 
influence, 156, 161; fur trade, 161, 215, 368; 
war with New France, 208, 209; French at- 
tempts to win, 215, 216, 221; massacre of 
La Chine, 216; treaty with French, 221; 
British protectorate recognized, 224; in King 
George's War, 363-365; in dispute between 
France and Great Britain, 368; dominate Ohio 
valley, 368; treaty of Fort Stanwix, 416; raids 
in Revolution, 498; retaliation by Washington, 
499. 

Isabella of Spain, 14. 

Island colonies, 39-40; in 1660, 130. See West 
Indies. 

Italy, in seventeenth century, 16. 

Jacobites, in 1745, 363. 

Jamaica, Spanish colony, 21; taken by English, 
133; constitutional controversies, 338; pro- 
posed attack (1782), 510. 

James, Duke of York, activities, 134; extent of 
patent, 155; government of New York, 157, 
158, 159. See James II. 

James I, King of England, 2, 37; conflict with 
Parliament, 6; church policy, 12, pi; Spanish 
policy, 15, 45; marriage, 17; Guiana patent, 
41; patent for Nova Scotia, 42; Virginia 
charters, 45, 54, 59; policy toward Pilgrims, 93. 

James II, Duke of York, 134, 155-159; becomes 
king, 159; Roman Catholic, 159, 193; grant 
to Penn, 168-169; religious policy, 192, 193; 
Revolution of 1688, 192-193; pension from 
Louis XIV, 216; tries to regain throne, 217; 
death. 220; supported by Catholic Irish, 289. 

James VI of Scotland. See James I, King of 
England. 

James River, navigable, 48; settlements on, 51, 
61; proposal to connect with the Ohio, 541. 

Jamestown settlement, 51. 

Jay, John, in first Continental Congress, 434; 
hopes for reconciliation, 450; pleads for delay, 
453; favors abandonment of New York city to 
Howe, 47S; peace commissioner, 513, 514; 
envoy to Spain, 514; negotiations for West, 
519; ignores instructions, 519; rnixed ancestry, 
532; opposition to up-state political machine, 
539; opposes colonization of the West, 544; 
antislavery leader, 554; Secretary of Foreign 
Affairs, 565; secures resolution denying right 
of state to obstruct a treaty, 572; policy towards 
Spain, 573; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; 



INDEX 



XXV 



Federal leader, 608; author of The Federalist, 
610; cited, 544, S4S, 582. 
Jefferson, Thomas, influenced by European 
writers, 25s; leader of back-country party, 330; 
broad thinking, 393; opinion of Patrick Henry, 
407; advocates committee of correspondence, 
42s; Declaration of Independence, 453, 455; 
governor of Virginia, retreats from British, 507; 
declines peace commission, 513; typical country 
gentleman, 534; Notes on Virginia, 540; 
opinion of tobacco culture, 540; opinion of 
manufactures, 541; on the suffrage in 
Virginia, S48; on apportionment, S497SS0; 
on election of governor, 551; favors religious 
liberty, 551, 552; law abolishing primogeniture, 
SS4; favors emancipation and colonization of 
negroes, 554; proposals for public education, 
SS5; theory of British Empire as a federation, 
556; on nature of Confederation, 563; member 
Confederation Congress, 566; devises decimal 
system of currency, 569; commissioner to 
negotiate commercial treaties, 570; proposes 
public land system, 575; plan for territories, 
576; opinion of the Shays rebellion, 582; favors 
Constitution, 609; cited, 407, 425, 540, 541. 
Jesuits, in Maryland, 70, 73, 74; missions to 
Indians, 208, 211, 212; in New France, 213; 
colony on Maine coast, 216. 
Jesus, Hawkins's ship, 27. 
Jews, in New Netherland, 146; in Pennsylvania, 

173; in Newport, 263; in New York, 304. 
Johnson, Edward, Massachusetts author, 100. 
Johnson, Samuel, president of King's College, 

2S4, 307; influence of Berkeley, 254. 
Johnson, Samuel, tract against colonies, 470. 
Johnson, Sir Nathaniel, governor of South Caro- 
lina, 222. 
Johnson, Sir William, in King George's War, 365; 
in French and Indian War, 373; superintendent 
of Indian affairs, 377; treaty of Fort Stanwix, 
416; son and nephew, 482; knighted, 534. 
Johnsons, attach Indians to British cause, 444; 

in Revolution, 482; loyalist influence, 497. 
Joint-stock companies before 1606, 4. 
Joliet, Louis, explorer, 210. 
Joncaire, in King George's War, 365; meets 

Washington, 371. 
Jones, Paul, victory over Serapis, 467. 
Judges, in England, 7; colonial, dispute as to 
tenure of oflace, 394; power to declare laws un- 
constitutional, 548; state, 551; federal, 594; 
control over unconstitutional legislation, S95- 
Judiciary, state, 551; under Articles of Con- 
federation, 562, 563; federal, 594. 
Juniata valley, Scotch-Irish in, 291. 
Jury trial, in England, 7; in America, 347. 
Justices of the peace, in England, 8; in Virginia, 
60; in Massachusetts, 106; in New York, 158; 
American like English, 343. 

Kalb, General, valuable service, 466; at Camden, 

494- 
Kalm, Swedish writer, cited, 294. 
Kanawha River, route to West, 542. 
Kansas, Coronado in, 24. 
Kaskaskia, British trading post, 498; taken by 

Clark, 499. 
Keith, George, Quaker leader, 304. 
Kennebec River colony, 47, 87. 
Kent Island, in Maryland, 70, 72. 



Kentucky, colonized, 496; county of Virginia, 
497; Indian raids, 498, 499; Clark's expedition, 
499; claim to statehood, 529; opposes Jay's 
Spanish policy, 574. 

Keppel, Admiral, refuses service in America, 471. 

Kidnaped white servants, in Virginia, 62. 

King, of England, powers, 6, 7, 227-228; head of 
church, 10; governs Virginia, 46, 54, SO; title 
to land, 63; control of colonies, 180; reduction 
of power, 227-228; in Council, 228-229. See 
Privy Council. 

King, Rufus, member Confederation Congress, 566; 
delegate in constitutional convention, 586; 
nationalist leader, 589; Committee on Style, 
600. 

King George's War, 364. 

King Philip's War, 128. 

King William's War, 217-219. 

King's Bench, Court of, 7. 

King's College, founded, 307. 

"King's Friends," party in Parliament, 401; in 
power, 422, 471. 

Kings Mountain, battle, 500. 

Knox, General Henry, Secretary of War, 565. 

Kocherthal, Joshua, promotes colonization, 286. 

Kosciusko, valuable service, 466; fortifies Bemis 
Heights, 484. 

Laborers, in England, 3-3; in the middle colonies, 
292; in the tidewater, 321; in United States, 
535-536- See Indentured servants, and Slavery. 

La Chine, massacre,2i6. 

Lafayette, Marquis de, valuable service, 466; allays 
French irritation, 506; campaign in Virginia, 507. 

Lake Champlain, in dispute between France and 
Great Britain, 367. 

Lake George, in dispute between France and Great 
Britain. 367; battle, 373, 392. 

Lancaster (Pa.), settled, 282; Germans and 
Swiss in, 288, 293; fine farms, 293; manu- 
factures, 29s; on route to West, 542. 

Land bank, in Massachusetts, 237, 272. 

Land Ordinance of 1785, 57s, 578. 

Land system, of United States, 575. 

Land tenure, in Virginia, 63; in Maryland, 71; 
in New England, loi, 350; in New Netherland, 
145; in New York, 160, 283; in Pennsylvania, 
171, 283-284; in New France, 214; in middle 
colonies, 2S2; in New Jersey, 283; inheritance 
in New England, 350; in Virginia, 554- See 
Quitrents. 

Landgrave, title in Carolina, 137. 

Landlords, in England, 4, 5; in middle colonies, 
283; in Ireland, 290. See Land tenure. 

Lansing (of N. Y.), opposes Constitution, 608. 

La Salle, achievements, 211. 

Laud, Bishop, church policy, 96; supports auto- 
cratic rule, 97; commissioner for the colonies, 
109. 

Laurens, peace commissioner, 5x3. 

Lawyers, American, trained in Inns of Court, 253, 
334. 346; influence, 346. 

Lee, Arthur, commissioner to France, 489. 

Lee, Gen. Charles, character, 465; battle of 
Monmouth, 492. 

Lee, Richard Henry, advocates committee of 
correspondence, 425; in first Continental Con- 
gress, 433; favors independence, 449; moves 
for American independence. 453; opposed to 
Washington, 467; opposes Constitution, 609. 



XXVI 



INDEX 



Leeward Islands, English colony, 130. 
Legislature, state, 549, 550; elects governor and 

judges, 551- 
Leisler, Jacob, party leader, 196; revolt, 197-198; 

character, 197; fall, 198. 
Leisler's revolt, 196-198. 
Letters from a Farmer, Dickinson's, 418, 419. 
Letters from an American Farmer, cited, 354. 
Lexington, battle, 442. 
Leyden, Pilgrims in, 92. 
Libel law, English and American, 3S1. 
Liberty, Hancock's sloop seized, 419. 
Lincoln, Earl of, Puritan leader, 98. 
Lincoln, General, loses Charleston, 493, 494. 
Lindsay, Capt. David, in slave trade, 262. 
Lining, John, Royal Society, 253. 
Literature, English, in America, 254, 341; New 

England, 278; in 1750, 341. 
Livingston, Robert R., committee on Declaration 

of Independence, 453; first Secretary of State 

for Foreign Affairs, 462; on arbitration of 

Wyoming valley dispute, 563; on nature of 

Confederation, 563. 
Livingstons, Scotch family in New York, i6t; 

intermarriages, 284; typical American gentry, 

534- 
Loans, from foreign countries, 464. 
Local government, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60; 

in Massachusetts, 106; in New Netherland, 148; 

in New England, 267; A.merican like English, 

343-344; new American ideas, 350. 
Locke, John, philosopher, 132; member Board of 

Trade, 231; influence on American thought, 

235, 342; Two Treatises of Government. 194; 

influence on Americans, 342; authority on 

natural rights, 344; defends English Revolution 

of 1688, 456. 
Logan, James, complains of Scotch-Irish in 

Pennsylvania, 291; scientist and man of affairs, 

308. 
London, importance in 1606, 4; trade with plan- 
tations, 246; German refugees, 287; attitude 

of merchants in 1775, 438. 
London Company, for settling Virginia, 46, 47. 
Long Island, Dutch settlers, t46; English 

settlers, 146, 148, 149; divided between 

Dutch and English, 151; patent to Duke of 

York, rss; made part of New York, 156; 

influence of New England, 157; discontent, 158; 

large land grants, 283; battle, 479. 
Long Parliament, 74. 
Lord Dunmore's War, 439. 
Lord lieutenant, in England, 8. 
Lords, House of, in 1606, 6; reduction of power, 

228. 
Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, 

230. Sec I5oard of Trade. 
Loudoun, Lord, in French and Indian War, 379, 

381. 
Louis XI of France, iS- 
Louis XIV, promotes French expansion, 208; 

colonial policy, 213; aids James 11, 217; in 

King William's War, 217; Spanish succession, 

220; in Queen Anne's War, 220, 221; wars 

against German states, 285. 
Louis XV, weakness, 378. 
Louis XVI, character, 4S6; policy toward United 

States, 487. 
Louisburg, importance in cont^ml of trade routes, 

360; main account, 363-364; taken in 1745, 



364; return of, 36s; saved from attack, 381; 
taken in 1758, 381, 382. 

Louisiana, colony begun by Iberville, 221; ceded 
to Spain, 386. _ 

Loyalists, or Tories, in first Continental Congress, 
434; views, 440; social factors, 440; argument, 
441; deprived of liberty of speech, 441; aid 
to British in Revolutionary War, 444, 460, etc.; 
defeat at Moores Creek Bridge, 447; oppose 
independence, 449; persecuted and disarmed, 
451-452; in New York, 475, 482; in New Jer- 
sey, 479, 480; in Pennsylvania, 492; in South 
Carolina, 493, 494; in North Carolina, 493; in 
Georgia, 493; on the frontier, 497; problem 
in peace negotiations, 521; hardships, 521,522; 
compromise, 522; states do not keep agreements 
concerning, 572. 

Lucas, Eliza, wife of Charles Pinckney, 329. 

Lumber, in New England, 102; in South Carolina, 
141; trade, 247, 294. 

Lutherans, in New Netherland, 149; in Penn- 
sylvania, 17s, 305; first American synod, 305; 
in Virginia, 331; in Thirteen Colonies, con- 
servatism, 353. 

Lyman, Phineas, in French and IndianWar,373,392. 

McKean, Chief-Justice, Federal leader in Penn- 
sylvania, 605. 

Mackinaw, French post, 358; British trading post, 
498; held by British, 527. 

Madison, James, educated at Princeton, 336; op- 
poses state support of church, 552; on nature of 
Confederation, 563; member of Confederation 
Congress, 566; on obligations to army, 567; dis- 
couraged by sectional feeling over Mississippi 
question, 574; favors cooperation of Virginia 
and Mar>'land, 585; proposes convention at 
Philadelphia, 585; character, delegate in con- 
stitutional convention, 585, 587; nationalist 
leader, 589; opposes compromise on representa- 
tion, 592; advocates congressional veto on state 
laws, 594; favors West, 599; Comm-ittee on 
Style, 600; favors Constitution, 608. 6oq; elected 
to First Congress, 610; author of The Federalist, 
611; interpretation of the Constitution, 612. 

Madras, recovered from French, 365. 

Magellan, explorer, 21. 

Magna Carta, argument against governor's salary, 

344- 

Magnalia Christi, Mather's book, 274. 

Mahan, cited, 505. 

Maine, first English colony in, 37, 47; proprietary 
government, 88; Plymouth fur trade, 94; Puri- 
tan settlers, 117; absorbed by Massachusetts, 
117; patent to Duke of York, 155; merged in 
New England, 187; joined with Massachusetts 
(1691), 203; Jesuit colony on the coast, 216; in 
King William's War, 218, 219; Queen Anne's 
War, 221; about 1690, 257; Indian wars, 258, 
259; remains part of Massachusetts, 529; set- 
tled by New Englanders, 542; opponents of 
the federal Constitution in, 606. 

Makemie, Francis, Presbyterian leader, 251, 306. 

Malaria, in Virginia, 49. 

Mandamus councilors, in Massachusetts, 431. 

Manhattan Island, Dutch settlers, 144, 14s, 146. 

Manila, taken by British. 385; restored, 386. 

Manorial estates, in England, 5; in Maryland, 71. 

Manorial system, in Carolina, 137; in New Nether- 
land, 145; in New York, 160, 283. 



INDEX 



XXVll 



Mansfield, Chief- Justice, argues for sovereignty of 
Parliament, 410. 

Manufactures, in England, 4; in Pennsylvania, 
176; English policy, 179; Board of Trade, 230, 
232; colonial, restricted by Parliament, 236; de- 
velopment, 243; in New England, 264; in Ulster, 
289, 290; in middle colonies, 294; of United 
States, 538, 541. 

Marcos, Friar, explorer, 24. 

Marietta, founded, 578. 

Marion, guerrilla leader, 494. 

Marlborough, Duke of, in Queen Anne's War, 221. 

Marquette, Father Jacques, explorer, 210. 

Marshall, John, favors Constitution, 608. 

Marthas Vineyard, patent to Duke of York, 155. 

Martin, Luther, delegate in constitutional conven- 
tion, 587; leader of small-state group, 590; pro- 
vision concerning enforcement of laws and 
treaties of the United States, 595; denounces 
slave trade, 597; Anti-Federalist, 603; opposes 
Constitution in Marj'land, 607; essay Genuine 
Information, 611; democratic feeling, 613. 

Martinique, taken by British, 386; restored, 386. 

Mary, Queen of England, 14. 

Mary, Queen of Scots, 14. 

Mary II, accession, 194. 

Maryland, charter, 67-69; boundaries, 68; early 
settlers, 69-72; religious toleration, 70, 73, 76, 
77; Claiborne, 70, 75. 76; manors, 71; tobacco] 
72, 320; government, 72; parliamentary com- 
missioners, 75, 76; Toleration Act, 76, 77; Puri- 
tan revolt, 76-77; conditions in 1688, 84-85; 
controversy with Pennsylvania, 169-170, 296; 
friction with imperial collectors, 185; Revolution 
of 1688, 198-200; discontent, 199; Protestant 
Association 199; royal province, 202,312; trade 
with England, 246; Anglican Church, 248, 33-; 
Germans in, 2S8, 319; dispute with Pennsylvania 
settled, 296; securely established before 1700, 
311; royal government, and again proprietary, 
312; growth of population, 314-315; slavery in, 
317; Germans and Scotch-Irish in, 319; quitrent 
troubles, 320; governor's power, 325; churches, 
332; claims benefit of English statutes, 346; 
laws against Catholics, 352; proprietors exempt 
from taxation, 394; votes for independence, 454; 
state constitution, 462-463, 547-551; ratifies 
Articles of Confederation, 501; opposes state 
claims to West, 530; prohibits importation of 
slaves, 534; western land question, 560; confer- 
ence with Virginia, 585; delegates in constitu- 
tional convention, 587; in small-state group, 590; 
ratifies federal Constitution, 607. See South, 
and Thirteen Colonies. 

Maryland Gazette, newspaper founded, 335. 

Mason, Capt. John, proprietor New Hampshire, 88. 

Mason, George, delegate in constitutional conven- 
tion, 585; denounces slave trade, 597; Anti- 
Federalist, 603, 609; opposes popular election of 
President, 613. 

Mason and Dixon's line, 296. 

Massachusetts, early settlements, 95; Massa- 
chusetts Bay Company, 95, 97; original bounda- 
ries, 97; charter of 1629, 98, 103, 187; Cambridge 
Agreement, 98; leaders, 98-100; motives of col- 
onization, 100; population, 100, 258; rapid 
development, 100; physical features, loi; land 
tenure, loi; industries, 102; government, 103- 
110, 269-272; voters, 103, 104, 274; Puritan 
oligarchy, 104; Body of Liberties, 106; tov.-n 



meeting, 106; church organization, 107; union 
of church and state, 107; religious intolerance, 

108, 113-116; importance of church, 108; edu- 
cation, 108, 278, 554; practical independence, 

109, 127; dissenters, 109, 112-115; persecution, 
11S-116; in New England Confederation, 126, 
127; dispute with Connecticut, 127; independ- 
ence threatened, 128; lands claimed by Duke of 
York, 155; relations with Charles 11, 186; char- 
ter annulled, 187; merged in New England, 187; 
land titles and taxes under Andros, 190, 191; 
separate government resumed, 195; charter of 
1691, 202-204; Queen Anne's War, 221; land 
bank, 237, 272; royal collector, 241; trade, 247; 
about 1690, 257, 258; expansion westward, 259; 
paper money, 265; government under second 
charter, 269-272; constitutional conflicts, 270- 
272; explanatory charter of 1725,271; military 
policy, 271; party politics, 272; churches m, 
273-277; witchcraft epidemic, 274; separation 
of church and state, 276, 552; boundary dispute, 
29s; religious toleration, 352; writs of assist- 
ance, 396; customs disputes, 419; Circulr 
Letter, 421; controversy revived by extremists, 
423; Government Act passed by Parliament in 
1774, 428; resistance to Coercive Acts, 431; 
provincial congress, 432; loyalists, 440; out- 
break of Revolution, 441; independent govern- 
ment, 449; state constitution, 462, 463, 547-551; 
claim to western New York, 529; claims North- 
west, 530; yields claim to Northwest, 530, 574; 
method of adopting state constitution, 547; 
apportionment, 549; suspensive veto, 550; 
choice of judges, 551; religious discriminations, 
551-552; provision for public education, 554; 
Shays rebellion, 581; proposes federal conven- 
tion, 584; delegates in constitutional convention, 
586; in large-state group, 590; ratifies federal 
Constitution, 606-607. See New England, and 
Thirteen Colonies. 

Massachusetts Government Act, 428. 

Massasoit, Indian chief, 128. 

Mather, Cotton, writings. 250, 274, 278; Royal 
Society, 253; recommends Dudley, 270; char- 
acter, 274; church policy, 275. 

Mather, Increase, mission to England, 192, 253, 
works for Massachusetts charter, 202; theologi- 
cal writings, 250; visits England, 253; colonial 
agent, 253; character, 274; church policy, 275. 

Mathers, theological writings, 250; church policy, 
275- 

Maumee River, Celoron's journey, 369. 

Mayflower, voyage, 93. 

Mayflower Compact, 94. 

Mayor, in England, 9. 

Mechanics, in United States, 535, 536. 

Menendez, in Florida, 24. 

Mennonites, in Pennsylvania, 175, 288, 305; in 
Switzerland, 286; community settkinents, 324. 

Mercantile theory of economics, 178-179. 

Merchants, Canadian, on Indian trade, 498; op- 
pose surrender of the West to United States, 528. 

Merchants, colonial, in New England, 263, 265, 
oppose writs of assistance in Massachusetts, 
396; customs disputes in Massachusetts, 419; 
tea tax, 426; loyalists, 440, 441. 

Merchants, English, social class, 3, 9; develop- 
ment. 4, 5; promote colonies, 37, 38, 45; m 
Restoration era, 132, 133; influence on colonial 
policy, 181, 182; War of the Spanish Succession, 



xxvm 



INDEX 



220; object to colonial currency, 237; relations 
with planters, 246; relations with colonies, 247; 
influence in Parliament, 401; favor repeal of 
Stamp Act, 409; attitude concerning Coercive 
Acts, 438; attitude toward Revolution, 470; 
influence on treaty with United States, 524; 
oppose surrender of West to United States, 
S28. 

Merchants, Irish, invite New Englaiid trade, 537. 

Merchants, Scotch, influence for Union, 226. 

Merion (Pa.), 175. 

Merrimac valley, in dispute, 257; settled, 2Sg. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, national organi- 
zation, 553. 

Methodists, in West, 545. 

Mexico, Spanish colony, 22, 24. 

Miami Indians, friendly to British, 369. 

Miami River, Celeron's journey, 369. 

Michigan, held in part by British, 527. 

Middle colonies, beginnings, 143-177; chapter on 
period 1689-1760, 281-309; rapid expansion, 
z8i; land policies, 282-284; immigration, 284- 
292; industries, 292-295; religion, 303-305; 
education, 306; religious toleration, 352; atti- 
tude toward Massachusetts in 1774, 432. See 
names of colonies. 

Middle Temple, colonials in, 334. 

Milborne, son-in-law of Leisler, 198. 

Military service, question of, in Pennsylvania, 302. 

Militia, character, 465. 

Minorca, attacked by French, 374; captured, 379; 
lost by British, 509. 

"Minutemen," in Massachusetts, 442. 

Miquelon, retained by France, 386. 

Missionaries to Indians, Spanish, 22, 24; English, 
33-34, 125; French, 208, 210, 211, 212; Mora- 
vian, 305. 

Mississippi River, discovered by De Soto, 23; ex- 
plored by Joliet and Marquette, 210; explored 
by La Salle, 211; English on (1699), 220; free 
navigation question, 489, 519, 543, 573. 

Mississippi valley, French occupation, 211; Eng- 
lish traders in, 357; in the Revolution, 499, 500. 

Mobile, French post, 358; taken by Spain, 500. 

"Mock" trials, clause in Declaration of Independ- 
ence, 429. 

Mohawk valley, settled, 282; German colonists, 
287,482,496,497; military operations in 1777, 
482; Whigs, 497; Indian raids, 498. 

Mohegans, Indian tribe, 123. 

Molasses, trade restricted, 235. 

Molasses Act, 235, 236; American objections, 247; 
evaded, 391; not enforced, 403. 

Money, provisions in Constitution, 596. See Paper 
money. 

Monk, General, friend of Charles II, 134. 

Monmouth, battle, 492. 

Monongahela River, route to W'est, 542. 

Monroe, member Confederation Congress, 566. 

Montcalm, Marquis of, character, 378; takes Os- 
wego, 379; takes Fort William Henry, 3S1; de- 
fends Quebec, 383-384; death, 384. 

Montesquieu, read by Americans, 341; ' influence 
on American constitutions, 549. 

Montgomery, Richard, Canadian expedition, 447. 

Montreal, French at, 25; taken'by Amherst, 385; 
taken by Montgomery, 447; Indian trade, 498. 

Moores Creek Bridge, battle, 447. 

Moravians, in Pennsylvania, 305; community 
settlements, 324. 



Morgan, Daniel, commands Virginians at Cam- 
bridge, 445; military ability, 466; service with 
Greene, 502; battle of the Cowpens, 503. 

Morris, Gouverneur, mixed ancestry, 532; devises 
decimal system of currency, 569; character, 
delegate in constitutional convention, 586, 587; 
nationalist leader, 589; opposes West, 599; 
Committee on Style, 600. 

Morris, Robert, committee on foreign alliances, 
454; committee on finance, 462; head of finance 
department, 502; asks French loan, 515; typical 
merchant prince, 534; "big business" in politics, 
539; resigns as superintendent of finances, 565; 
delegate in constitutional convention, 586, 587; 
nationalist leader, 589. 

Morrises, in New York, intermarriages, 284; na- 
tionalist leaders, 589. 

Mosquito Coast, English colony, 41. 

Moultrie, William, defends Charleston, 448. 

Muhlenberg, Frederick, political positions, 532- 
533; president Pennsylvania state convention, 
532-533. 605. 

Muhlenberg, Heinrich, Lutheran leader in Penn- 
sylvania, 305. 

Muscovy Company, chartered, 4. 

Mutinies, in the army, 465, 501. 

Nabobs, in Parliament, 401. 

Nantucket, patent to Duke of York, 155; whalers, 
260. 

Narragansett planters, 266. 

Narragansett settlements, 117-119. 

Narragansetts, Indian tribe, 123. 

Narvaez, explorer, 23. 

Nashville, founded, 497; route of first settlers, 543. 

Natchez, British trading post, 498; held by Spam, 
528. 

Naturalization Act, British, 286. 

Naval stores, importance to England, 32, 33, 179; 
in South Carolina, 141; trade restricted, 235; 
bounties, 236; in North Carolina, 321. 

Navigation Act of 1651, 75; full account, 180. 

Navigation Act of 1660, 182. 

Navigation Act of i6g6, 234. 

Navigation Acts, provisions, 80, 180; dependent 
on colonial governments, 170; influence for union 
of Scotland and England, 226; defied by Con- 
gress, 451. See Acts of Trade. 

Navy, American, beginnings of, 467; contributions 
to victory, 467, 468; advantage of French alli- 
ance, 491. 

Negroes, Spanish slavery, 22; in Virginia, 62, 77, 
78; increase in southern colonies, 131, 135, 316- 
318; in South Carolina, 141, 322; in New York, 
160, 292; in New England, 266; negro plots in 
New York, 292; increase in the South, 316-317; 
few in piedmont, 318; negro insurrection in 
South Carolina, 322; three-fifths rule, 598. See 
Slavery, and Slave trade. 

Netherlands. See Dutch, and Holland. 

Neutral rights, dispute during Revolutionary War, 
S04. 

New Amsterdam, founded, 145; municipal govern- 
ment, 148; attacked by the Indians, 150; named 
New York, 157. 

New England, pioneers, 87; explored by Smith, 87; 
Council for, 88. 94, 95, 97, 121; motives for col- 
onization, 88; Plj'mouth founded, 93; great mi- 
gration to Massachusetts, gS; physical features, 
loi; agriculture, loi, 102; land system, loi; 



INDEX 



XXIX 



community spirit, 102; industries, 102; com- 
merce, 103, 138, 130, ISI. 183, 236, 246-247, 261- 
264,536-538; town meeting, io6, 350; union of 
church and state, 107; Indians in, 123, 124, 128; 
summary of Puritan enterprise, 124; effect of 
English Civil War, 124; relations with French 
and Dutch, 125, 126; Confederation, 125-127; 
English government (Restoration) unfriendly, 
127-128; emigrants from, 136, see New England- 
ers; trade with North Carolina, 138, 139; trade 
with New Netherland, 151; salt for fisheries, 
1S3; trade in tobacco, 183; friction with im- 
perial collectors, 185; imperial control, 186-192; 
the "Greater New England," 187-189; under 
Andros, 1S9-192, 195; land system attacked, 
190; Anglican Church, 192, 248, 250, 276; 
Revolution of 1688, 195; reorganization, 201-204; 
King William's War, 218, 219; Queen Anne's 
War, 221-224; trade with West Indies, 235, 
236,261; distilleries, 247; aided by English dis- 
senters, 250; chapter on period 1690-1760, 257- 
279; sectional individuality, 257; population, 258, 
259; causes of slow growth, 258; expansion, 259; 
fisheries, main account, 260; shipbuilding, 260; 
trade, main account, 261-264; manufactures, 
264, 538; currency problem, 264, 265; common 
political problems, 267; charters threatened, 268; 
churches in, 273-277, 351; separation of church 
and state, 276, 552; Great Awakening, 276; edu- 
cation, 277; literature, 278; provincialism, 278; 
Scotch-Irish in, 291; racial character, 340; com- 
mon law modified, 345; inheritance of land, 350; 
improvements in court procedure, 351; Anglo- 
Spanish War of 1739, 362; King George's War, 
3637365; French and Indian War, 375; Re- 
straining Act, 43S; cooperation in opposing 
Gage, 442; volunteers at Cambridge, 445; troops 
in Saratoga campaign, 483; English population 
predominates, 532; conditions after the Revolu- 
tion, 536-538; emancipation, 554; paper-money 
movement, 580. See names of colonies. 

New England Confederation, 125-127. 

New England Restraining Act, 438. 

New Englanders, special characteristics, 131; in 
South Carolina, 141; in New Netherland, 14S, 
151; in New Jersey, 163-165; westward move- 
ment, 542. 

New France (Canada), beginnings, 207; war with 
Iroquois, 208; population, 209, 210; govern- 
ment, 209; autocracy, 210; paternalism, 213 
214; influence of the church, 213; feudalism 
214; fur trade, 215; in French and Indian War 
375, 377, 382-386; taken by British, 385-386 
See Canada. 

New Hampshire, proprietary government, 88 
Puritan settlers, 117; absorbed by Massachu- 
setts, 117; separated from Massachusetts and 
reunited in New England, 187; separate royal 
province (1691), 203; King William's War, 218, 
219; Queen Anne's "iVar, 221; about 1690, 257; 
expansion northward, 259; government, 272; 
dispute with New York, 295; independent gov- 
ernment, 449; state constitution, 462-463, 547- 
551; claims Vermont, 496; ratifies federal Con- 
stitution, 608. See New England, and Thirteen 
Colonies. 

New Haven, founded, 122; united with Connecti- 
cut, 123; in New England Confederation, 126, 
127; treaty with Stuyvesant, 151; profit from 
commerce, 259. 



New Jersey, beginnings, 162; boundaries, 162; dis- 
puted government, 162; physical features, 163; 
early settlers, 163; East New Jersey and West 
New Jersey, 164-165; population, 165, 281; 
added to New England, 189; restored to pro- 
prietors, 202; royal province, 204; rent riots, 
283; landlords, 2S3; Germans in, 288; com- 
merce, 294; manufactures, 294; boundary dis- 
pute, 295; political connections with Ncv/Vork 
and Pennsylvania, 296; votes for independence, 
454; state constitution, 462-463, 547-551; mil- 
itary operations, 479-480, 492; trade through 
New York city, 538; judges annul act of legis- 
lature, in riolmes V. Walton, 548; taxes Sandy 
Hook lighthouse, 571; delegates in constitutional 
convention, 587; in small-state group, 590; 
ratifies federal Constitution, 604. See Thirteen 
Colonies. 

New Jersey plan of constitution, 591; executive, 
5931 power of Congress over states, 594; in- 
fluence on details, 600. 

"New Lights," in New England, 277; in Virginia, 
533, 

New London, profit from commerce, 259. 

New Me.xico, Spanish colony, 24. 

New Netherland, founded, 145; land tenure, 14s; 
fur trade, 145, 146; population, 146; govern- 
ment, 146-148; churches, 149; education, 149; 
Indians, 150; conquest of New Sweden, 151; 
English rivalry, 151; conquest by England, 152, 
153- 

New Orleans, ceded to Spain, 386. 

New Plymouth, 94, 95. See Plymouth. 

New South, development, 318, 319. 

New Sweden, founded, 150; conquest, 151. 

New World, discovered and named, 20. 

New York, English colony, originally New Nether- 
land, 153, 15s; boundaries, 156; government, 
IS7-I5Q, 297,540-552; English institutions in- 
troduced, 157-158; Duke's Laws, 158; churches, 
159, 248, 303-305; land tenure, 160, 283; aris- 
tocracy, 160, 196, 297; slavery, 160, 292; com- 
merce, 160, 247, 292; fur trade, 160-161, 293, 
538; Governor Dongan, 161; imperialism in 
charter, 185; added to New England, 189; anti- 
Catholic spirit, 196, 352, 552; Leisler's revolt, 
196-198; separate royal province, 202; Queen 
Anne's War, 221-222; population, 281; ex- 
pansion, 281-282; large land grants, 283; fu- 
sion of Dutch and English, 284; German col- 
onists, 287; Scotch Irish in, 291; flour exports, 
292; boundary disputes, 295, 496, 529; strategic 
importance, 296; politics, 297; voters, 297; 
constitutional conflicts, 297-299; education, 306; 
language in 1750, 340; English sports, 342; local 
government, 350; laws against Catholics, 352; 
assembly is suspended by Parliament, 417; 
attitude toward Massachusetts in 1774, 432; 
attitude on independence, 454, 455; state con- 
stitution, 462-463, 547-551; claims Vermont, 
496, 529; held in part by British, 527; claim of 
Ma.ssachusetts to western New York, 529; yields 
claim to Northwest, 530; conditions after the 
Revolution, 538-539; duties on trade of New 
Jersey and Connecticut, 538,571; landed inter- 
est, 539; western New York settled by New 
Englanders, 542; state senate, 549; veto power 
in council of revision, 550; election of governor, 
551; excludes Catholics from naturalization, 
552; discriminatory duties, 571; Trespass Act, 



XXX 



INDEX 



S7 2-573; proposes federal convention, 384; del- 
egates in constitutional convention, 5S7; ratifies 
federal Constitution, 608. 5ee Thirteen Colonies. 

New York Bay, explored by Hudson, 144. 

New York city, originally New Amsterdam, 137; 
center of population, 281, 282; commerce, 203, 
338; society and houses, 294; Stamp Act Con- 
gress, 408; tea ships, 427; loyalists, 440; harbor 
under British, 475, 477; taken by British, 479; 
British retain control, 493; after Yorktown, 508; 
during and after the Revolution, 538; Confed- 
eration Congress at, 367; favors Constitution, 
608. 

Newburg Addresses, 568. 

Newcastle, Duke of, colonial administrator, 230; 
prevents parliamentary duties on the colonies, 
237; in King George's War, 364; policy in 1734, 
371; politician, 379; resigns, 380; alliance with 
Pitt, 380; crowded out by Bute, 399: leader of 
"Old Whigs," 400. 

Newfoundland, fishing grounds, 24, 26, 103; visited 
by English, 26; Gilbert's colony, 33; Avalon 
colony, 42; Banks, visited by New England 
fishermen, 103; French in, 212; cession by 
France to Great Britain, 224; relations with 
Thirteen Colonies, 338; French fishing rights, 
386; fisheries in peace negotiations of 1782, 520. 

Newport (R. I.), founded, 118; slave trade, 247; 
profit from commerce, 259; trade, 262, 263, 537; 
merchants, 263; liberal society, 279; taken by 
British, 480; attack planned in 1778, 493; evac- 
uation, 493; French troops at, 506. 

Newport, Capt. Christopher, commands fleet to 

Virginia, 47; councilor, si- 
Newspapers, Colonial, 254; New England, 278; 
middle colonies, 299, 300; in the South, 333; 
intercolonial interests, 339; German, 289, 34T. 

Niagara, French post, 358, 368; unsuccessful ex- 
pedition against, 373; taken by British, 384; 
British trading post, 498; held by British, 527. 

Nicholson, lieutenant-governor of New York, 196; 
retires, 197. 

Nicolls, Richard, becomes governor of New York, 
132,. 153; guarantees to Dutch, 136; adminis- 
tration and character, 157-158; grants in New 
Jersey, 163. 

Nine-state rule, 362, 566. 

Nobility, no formal nobility in United States, 534. 
See Aristocracy. 

Noell, Martin, consulted on colonial policy, iSi. 

Nombre de Dios, raided by Drake, 30. 

" Nonconsumption " agreement, enforcement, 439. 

Nonimportation, in opposition to Stamp Act, 409; 
in 1769, 421; in opposition to Townshend Acts, 
422,423; in 1774, 43s; enforcement, 439; loya- 
list argument against, 441. 

Norfolk, chief town of Virginia, 323; attacked in 
1776, 447; JeSerson's expectation, 340. 

North, Lord, character and ministry, 422-423, 472; 
"Conciliatory Proposition," 43S; in power, 471, 
472; resigns, 509; conference with Hartley, 512. 

North America, early colonies, 22-25; passage 
through, 32, 144. 

North Carolina, Spanish colony in, 23; Raleigh's 
colony, 33, 36; included in Virginia, 136; 
churches, 137, 130, 250, 232; pioneers, 138; 
character, 138-139; Cape Fear River colony, 
139; friction with imperial collectors, 185; 
insurrections, 198, 313; before 1689, 311; be- 
comes separate royal province, 314; growth of 



population, 314-315; slavery in, 317; Germans 
and Scotch-Irish in, 319; back country settled, 
319; quitrent troubles, 320; products, 320, 321; 
governor's salary, 325; loyalists, 441; loyalists 
defeated in 1776, 447; state constitution, 462- 
463, 547-551; Tennessee settlements, 497; 
battle of Kings Mountain, 300; military opera- 
tions in 1781, 502-504; authority over Tenn- 
essee, 529; interest in the West, 541; state 
senate, 549; state institution of higher learn- 
ing, 555.; in large-state group, 590; delays 
ratification of federal Constitution, 610. See 
Carolina, South, and Thirteen Colonies. 

Northampton (Mass.), Great Awakening, 276. 

Northern Neck, in Virginia, 81, 320. 

Northwest, state claims and cessions, 529, 530, S74. 

Northwest Territory, creation and government, 
577-578. 

Norwich (Eng.), Separatists, 91. 

Nova Scotia, French colony, 25 ; patent to Sterling, 
42; under Cromwell, 133; joined with Mass- 
achusetts (1691), 203; ceded by France, 224; 
royal government, 240; English colonization, 
367; no revolutionary spirit, 446. 

Oath of supremacy, 67. 

Oaths, question of, in Pennsylvania, 301-302. 

Oglethorpe, James, founds Georgia, 315; war with 
Spain, 362. 

Ohio, held in part by British, 527; Connecticut. 
Reserve, 530. 

Ohio Company, before the French and Indian War, 
360. 

Ohio Company, formed by New England army offi- 
cers, 576; plants settlement at Marietta, 578. 

Ohio River, C61oron's journey, 369. 

Ohio valley, English traders in, 357; claimed by 
French and by English, 359; in dispute between 
France and Great Britain, 368-371; in dispute 
between Pennsylvania and Virginia, 369, 389; 
pioneers, 542, 543. 

Old Dominion, 62-63. See Virginia. 

Old South, defined, 318. 

"Old Whigs," defined, 400; attitude toward Amer- 
ica, 400; conciliatory proposals, 437; opposition 
ineffective, 471. 

Olive oil, hopes of, in Carolina, 138; in Virginia, 
179. 

Orange County (N. Y.), Scotch-Irish, 291. 

Orangemen, bitterness against Catholics, 289. 

Ordinance of 1784, 576. 

Ordinance of 1787, 577-578, 579. 

Oriskany, battle, 483. 

Oswald, Richard, negotiations with Franklin, 516; 
peace commissioner, 517; new commission, 517; 
signs treaty, 522. 

Oswego, English trading post established, 293, 368; 
taken by Montcalm, 379; British trading post, 
498; held by British, 527; effect of British 
occupation, 538. 

Otis, James, opposes writs of assistance, 396; op- 
poses Stamp Act, 406; questions power of Par- 
liament, 396, 406; in Stamp Act Congress, 408. 

Oxford, University of, 13, 333, 334- 

Paine, Thomas, Comm^m Sense, 450; cited, 2. 
Palatinate (Germany), suffering from war, 285; 

colonists in England and America, 287. 
Palatinate of Durham, 68. 
I Panama, Spanish colony, 21; raided by Drake, 30. 



INDEX 



XXXI 



Paper money, regulated by British government, 
237,238, 239, 265,405; differing views, 247,272; 
in New England, 265; restricted by Parliament, 
265, 405; issued by Congress and by states, 464, 
S69; movement after the Revolution, 580-581; 
the case of Trevett v. Weeden, 581. 

Paris, treaty (1763), 386, 429. 

Parish, in England, 8, 10; in Virginia, 60, 61, 82; 
American like English, 343. 

Parks, William, newspaper publisher, 335. 

Parliament, English, in 1606, 3, 6; sovereignty es- 
tablished, 7, 194, 20s, 228; governs church, 10; 
Long Parliament, 74; conflict with Charles I, 
74,97; right of taxation in Pennsylvania charter, 
171; control of colonies, iSo, 205, 234; British, 
227; sovereignty established, 22S; unrepre- 
sentative character, 228, 470; not controlled by 
any fundamental law, 232; control of colonial 
legislatures, 234; legislature for the empire, 237; 
restricts paper money, 265, 405; proposed revo- 
cation of colonial charters, 268; proposed taxa- 
ation of colonies, 298; absolute authority of, 
349; reimburses colonies after French and In- 
dian War, 390; powers questioned by Otis, 396, 
406; under George III, 401; proposed American 
taxation, 403; authority denied by Bland, 408; 
by Stamp Act Congress, 408; debate on taxa- 
tion and authority, 409-411; declares its author- 
ity over colonies, 411; power to tax denied by 
Dickinson, 418; Tea Act of 1773, 426; changes 
government of Massachusetts, 428, 441; au- 
thority denied in first Continental Congress, 434, 
435; Chatham's views, 437; Jefferson's theory 
as to authority, 556. 

Parliamentary government established, 228. 

Parson's Cause, in Virginia, 394. 

Partisan warfare, in Revolution, 494. 

Pastorius, Francis Daniel, leader in Pennsylvania, 
175- 

Paterson, proposes New Jersey plan in constitu- 
tional convention, 591. 

Patroons, in New Netherland, 14s, 149. 

Patuxent River, navigable, 48. 

Pauperism, in England, 5. 

Peckham, Sir George, cited, 2. 

Pemaquid, fort, 271. 

Penn, Sir William, father of William Penn, 
166. 

Penn, William, proprietor New Jersey, 164; char- 
acter and early life, 165-167; as a Quaker, 167, 
168; defense of religious liberty, 168, 173; grant 
of Pennsylvania and Delaware, 168-169; con- 
troversy with Maryland, 170; as proprietor of 
Pennsylvania, 170-171, 175, 176; holy experi- 
ment, 171; land policy, 171-172, 284; constitu- 
tional experiments, 172-173; Indian policy, 
174; stays in Pennsylvania, 174, 176; promotes 
settlement of Pennsylvania, 174; trials, 176, 301; 
loses and regains Pennsylvania, 204; religious 
policy, 352; cited, 167, 172. 

Penn family, as landlords in Pennsylvania, 300-301. 

Pennsylvania, charter, 169, 170-171, 185-186; 
boundaries, 169, 295; controversy with Mary- 
land, 169-170, 296; government, 170-171, 
549-552; religious freedom, 173; population, 
174-175, 281; churches, 175, 304-306; indus- 
tries, 176, 294; friction with Penn, 176, 2S3; 
influence of imperialism on charter, 186; tem- 
porarily a royal province, 204; trade, 247, 293; 
expansion, 281, 282; large-scale immigration, 



284; Germans b, 288,303, 305,341; Swiss in, 
288, 305; influence of the German element, 288; 
Scotch-Irish in, 291, 303; slavery, 292; chief 
granary of the continent, 293; fur trade, 293; 
manufactures, 294; boundary disputes, 295, 369, 
389, 529, 563; politics, 299-303; taxing of the 
proprietary estates, 301; laws disallowed, 301, 
302; question of oaths, 301-302; question of mil- 
itary service, 302; Quaker control, 302, 303; ed- 
ucation, 306; common law modified, 345; local 
government, 350; claims upper Ohio, 369, 389; 
hinders Braddock, 373; French and Indian War, 
375 ; opposes proprietary rule, 394; attitude 
toward Massachusetts in 1774, 432; radicals in 
1774. 432; riflemen in army at Cambridge, 
445; attitude on independence, 453, 454; state 
constitution, 462-463, 547-551; governor re- 
placed by council, 4,63; settlements near Fort 
Pitt, 496; gains Wyoming valley, 529, 563; 
conditions after the Revolution, 539-540; on 
route to West, 542; one-house legislature, 549; 
no governor, 550; religious test for legislators, 
552; emancipation act, 554; Wyoming valley 
dispute settled by arbitration, 563; paper money 
issued, 580; delegates in constitutional con- 
vention, 586; in large-state group, 590; ratifies 
federal Constitution, 604-606. See Thirteen 
Colonies. 

Pennsylvania Gazette, Franklin's paper, 254. 

Pensacola, taken by Spain, 500. 

Pepperell, William, takes Louisburg, 364; 
knighted, 534- 

Pepys, Samuel, naval adviser, 134; cited, 166. 

Pequot War, 123. 

Persecution, theory of, 116. 

Personal liberty, protection of, 344. 

Perth Amboy, port of East New Jersey, 163; trade, 
294. 

Peru, Spanish colony, 22. 

Petition of Right, 97. 

Philadelphia, founded, 176; Catholic church in, 
252; center of population, 281, 282; main gate- 
way of immigration, 284; commerce, 293; first 
among American cities, 294; society and houses, 
294; manufactures, 294; tea ships, 427; radicals 
in 1774, 432; first Continental Congress, 433; 
loyalists, 440; taken by British, 481, 482; evac- 
uated, 492; largest city in United States, popu- 
lation, 532; mechanics in politics, 536; 
conditions after the Revolution, 539-540; politi- 
cal conditions, 539-540; Confederation Congress, 
567; convention, 5S5-600, see Convention; 
favors federal Constitution, 604; state con- 
vention, 605. 

Philip II, tyranny in Netherlands, 2, 14; relations 
with England, 14-15; wife, 14; controls Portu- 
gal, 17. 

Philip V, 220. 

Philippines, Magellan in, 21; in Seven Years' 
War, 38s, 386. 

Phillips, General, in Virginia. 507. 

Phillipse family, in New York, 160. 

Phips, Sir William, in King William's War, 219; 
governor of Massachusetts, 269. 

Pickawillany, British post, 369; broken up, 370- 

Pickens, guerrilla leader, 494. 

Pieces of eight, 264. 

Piedmont, colonization, 49, 318; characteristics, 
323-325; in Virginia, opposes Constitution, 
609. See Back country. 



xxxu 



INDEX 



Pilgrims, in Holland, 92; found Plymouth, 92-05; 
influence. 95. 

Pinckney, Charles, of South Carolina, career, 329; 
member Confederation Congress, 566; delegate 
in constitutional convention, 5S7; influence on 
details, 600. 

Pinckney,, Charles Cotesworth, delegate in con- 
stitutional convention, 587. 

Pinckneys, typical American gentry, 534. 

Piracy, act of Parliament against, 237; broken up 
by Spotswood, 328. 

Piracy courts, 242. 

Pirates, in North Carolina, 139, 312; in Pennsyl- 
vania, 176, 204; Newport, 262; in the Carolinas, 

312. 

Piscataqua, shipyards, 261. 

Pitt, William, the elder, character, 380; ministry, 
380; strategy, 3S1; appointments, 381, 382; 
appeal to the colonies, 381; plans for 1759, 383; 
for 1761, 385; resigns, 385, 399; uses navy to 
enforce Molasses Act, 301; American aflection, 
392; independence of \Vhig organization, 397; 
leader of Pittites, 400; declines office in 1765, 
409; denies power of Parliament to tax America, 
410; repeal of Stamp Act, 414; ministry with 
Grafton, 415; becomes Earl of Chatham, 4x5; 
out of power, 422; opposition ineffective, 471; 
last appeal for the empire, 491; cited, 410, 411. 
See Chatham. 

Pitt, William, the younger, attitude toward United 
States, 571-572- 

"Pittites," defined, 400; attitude toward America, 
400. 

Pittsburgh, named, 383; on route to West, 542. 

Pizarro, conquest of Peru, 22. 

Plains of Abraham, battle, 384. 

Plantation colonies, commerce, 246. 

Plantations, in Virginia, 63, 64, 79, 319; in South 
Carolina, 141, 316, 319, 541; in Georgia, 316, 
S41; in tidewater, 319; products, 3-0. 

Planters, relations with English merchants, 246. 

Plymouth (Eng.), importance in 1606, 4. 

Plymouth (Mass.), founded, 93; business basis, 93, 
94; fur trade, 94; government, 94; church or- 
ganization, 95; influence, os; in New England 
Confederation, 126, 127; merged in New Eng- 
land, 189; separate government resumed, 195; 
united with Massachusetts, 203. 

Plymouth Company, for settling Virginia, 46, 47,87. 

Pompadour, Madame de, 379. 

Ponce de Leon, in Florida, 22. 

Pontiac, Indian chief, war, 390. 

Poor Richard's Almanac, Franklin's, 308. 

Pope, poet, influence on America, 254. 

Pope's line of demarcation, 20. 

Popham, Sir John, colonizer, 38, 45. 

Population, Colonial, 340, see also particular col- 
onies; of United States, 531. 

Port Royal (Acadia), French colony, 25, 212; 
attacked by Argall, 216; taken by Phips, 219. 

Port Royal (S. C), French colony, 25. 

Port Royal (S. C.), Scotch settlement, 143. 

Porto Bello, captured, 362. 

Porto Rico, Spanish colony, 21. 

Portsmouth (R. I.), founded, 117. 

Portsmouth (N. H.), profit from commerce, 259. 

Portugal, temporary union with Spain, 15, 17; 
American possessions, 21; trade in East, 32, 144; 
supported by England in South American bound- 
ary dispute, 488. 



Post office, colonial, established by Parliament, 237. 

Post routes, colonial, 339. 

Potomac River, navigable, 48; proposal to connect 
with the Ohio, 541. 

Poverty, rare in United States, 535. 

Povey, Thomas, consulted on colonial policy, 181. 

Powhatan, Indian chief, 49, 50. 

Pownall, governor of Pennsylvania, 293, 375; cited, 
293- 

Prerogative, royal, in England, 6, 7; in control of 
colonies, 238, 239; weakening, 241. 

Presbyterians, in Massachusetts, 114; in South 
Carolina, 142; in East New Jersey, 165; in 
American colonies, 251, 305, 306; organization, 
251; in Ulster, 290; first American presbytery 
and synod, 306; in middle colonies, 305, 306; 
in Virginia, 330, 331, 332, 533; in Maryland, 
332; in back country, 332, 336; education in the 
back country, 336; in West, 545; national or- 
ganization, S53; in Pennsylvania, oppose Con- 
stitution, 604. 

President, provisions in constitutional convention, 
593, 594; independent status, 593. 

Presque Isle, French fort, 370. 

Price, Richard, interest in American problems, 527. 

Prime minister, British, 229. 

Primogeniture, abolished in Virginia, 554. 

Princeton, battle, 480; Confederation Congress, 
567. 

Princeton College and University, founded, 307; 
intellectual center of Scotch-Irish, 307; mfluence 
on New South, 336. 

Privateers, in Queen Aime's War, 222; relation to 
piracy, 262; in Revolution, 467, 491, 505; ad- 
vantage of French alliance, 491. 

Privy Council, committees on colonial affairs, 185; 
control over colonial laws, 203, 238, 349; court 
of appeals from colonial courts, 203, 239, 349; 
powers. 228; judicial authority, 232; disallow- 
ance of colonial laws, 238. ' 

Proclamation of 1763, 390; Shelbume's view, 415- 
416. 

Proprietary provinces, Maryland, 69; in New 
England, 83; Carolina, 136-137; New York, 157; 
New Jersey, 162; Pennsylvania, 170-173; Brit- 
ish policy on, 184-186, 204, 240. 

Protective principle in acts of trade, 184. 

Protestant Association, Maryland, 199-200. 

Protestant Episcopal Church, in United States, 
533; national organization, 553. 

Protestant Reformation, 10, ii, 16. 

Protestants. See 'Dutch Protestants, Huguenots, 
Puritans, Presbyterians, etc. 

Providence, colony in the Caribbean, 41. 

Providence, settlement in Maryland, 72. 

Providence (R. I.), founded, 117; profit from com- 
merce, 259. 

Provincetown, Pilgrims at, 93. 

Provincial congress, of Massachusetts, 432; in 
Virginia, 433; in colonies generally, gains power, 
448. 

Prussia, War of the Austrian Succession, 363, 365; 
Seven Years' War, 374, 384; alliance with Great 
Britain, 374; favorable to American rebels, 469; 
armed neutrality, 504; commercial treaty with 
United States, 570. 

Public lands system, of United States, 573. See 
also Land. 

Puffendorf, read by Americans, 341. 

Pulaski, valuable service, 466. 



INDEX 



xxxm 



Puritanism, defined, 89; doctrines, 89-90. 

Puritans, in England, 11, 12, 74, Sg, 90, 96, 131; 
Dutch influence, 18; in Mar>'land, 65, 74, 75- 
77; control England, under Cromwell, 74; doc- 
trines, 89-90; kinds of, go; outlook in England 
in 1629, 96-97; oppose Laud, 96; intolerance, 96. 
108,116; found Massachusetts, 97-99; oligarchy 
in Massachusetts, 104-105; churches in Massa- 
chusetts, 107-108; in Connecticut, 121; in New 
Haven, 122; results of 50 years enterprise, 124; 
in New York, 159; in New Jersey, 163-165; 
offended by Andros, 192; weakening of the 
Puritan tradition in New England, 273; Con- 
sociation, 275. See Congregationalists. 

Pym, John, colonizer, 41, 42. 

Quakers, doctrines, 115, 167, 168; persecuted in 
Massachusetts, 115; in Rhode Island, 120; in 
American colonies in general, 135, 250, 353; in 
North Carolina, 139, 332; in New Netherland, 
149; control New Jersey. 164-165; persecu- 
tion in England, 168; control of Pennsylvania, 
168, 171, 173, 301-303; settlers in Penn- 
sylvania, 17s, 301-305; connection between 
American and English organizations, 250; 
in Boston, 273; in New England, 276; slave 
owners, 292, 305; antislavery, 292, 304-305; ques- 
tion of oaths, 301-302; question of military 
service, 302; differences, 304; schools, 306; in 
Virginia, 330; in Maryland, 332; in Thirteen 
Colonies, radicalism, 353; in French and Indian 
War, 376; in the Revolution, 440. 

Quarter sessions, court in England, 8. 

Quartering Act of 1774, 429. 

Quartermaster-general, bad management, 465 

Quary, Robert, cited, 246. 

Quebec, founded, 207; taken by English (1629), 
208; renewed grov/th under French, 208; at- 
tacked in King William's War, 219; threatened 
in Queen Anne's War, 222, 223; well placed for 
defense, 377; siege (1759), 383; taken, 384; 
attacked in 1775-1776, 447. 

Quebec, British province, 390; boundaries ex- 
tended, 430. 

Quebec Act of 1774, 429-430. 

Queen Anne's War, 220-224. 

Quitrents, in Virginia, 63, 320, 325; in New Jersey, 
164, 2S3; in Pennsylvania, 171, 283, 300, 301; 
under Andros, rgo; in middle colonies, 283; in 
Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, 
320, 323. 

Radicals, in Massachusetts, 419-420, 431; in 
Virginia, 425,^ 432; in middle colonies, 432; 
in first Continental Congress, 434; propose 
independence, 449, 450; win Declaration of 
Independence, 453-455; in the United States, 
579-582, 613. 

Radnor (Pa.), 175. 

Raleigh, Sir Walter, colonizer, 35-36, 40; death, 36. 

Randolph, Edmund, governor of Virginia, delegate 
in constitutional convention, 585; plan of Con- 
stitution, 589; urges plural executive, 593; 
favors adoption of Constitution, 608. 

Randolph, Edward, collector, 185; evidence 
against Massachusetts, 187; in government of 
New England, iSp, 190; deposed, igs. 

Randolph, Peyton, in first Continental Congress, 
433- 

Randolphs, typical American gentry, 534. 



Rappahannock River, navigable, 48. 

Rawdon, Lord, campaign in South Carolina, 503. 

Rayneval, propcsal concerning the West, 519, 528; 

cited, 516. 
Redemptioners, in Pennsylvania (Germans), 288. 
in United States, 535. See Indentured servants; 
Redwood, Abraham, Newport merchant, career, 

264. 
Regicides, in New England, 127. 
Religion, in England, 10-12; in Thirteen Colonies, 
351-354; m United States, 533, 545. 6'ee Church, 
Anglican, Roman Catholics, Puritanism, Re- 
ligious toleration, etc. 
Religious intolerance, in Virginia, 6s, 331; in Eng- 
land, g6; in Massachusetts, 108, 113-116; in 
New York, i4g, 303; in the colonies, 332: in 
the United States, 551, 552. 
Religious liberty, Penn's defense, 168, 173; in 
state constitutions, 550; in Virginia, 352; in 
Ordinance of 17S7, 578. 
Religious tests, in states, 551. 
Religious toleration, in Maryland, 70, 73, 76; in 
Rhode Island, 119, 120; in Carolina, 137; in 
South Carolina, 142; in New Netherland, 149; 
m New York, 159, 303-304; in Pennsylvania, 
173. 303-304; in Massachusetts, 273, 275-276; 
in New Hampshire, 273; in Connecticut, 275- 
276; in Germany, 2S6; in middle colonies, 
303-304; in Virginia, 330-332, 552; in Thirteen 
Colonies, 3S1-354; in Canada, 429; instates, 530; 
in Ordinance of 17S7, 578. 
Rembrandt, Dutch painter, 17. 
Renaissance, 13. 

Rensselaer, Killian Van, patroon, 145. 
Representation, new theory, 348-349; theory of 
Stamp Act Congress, 40S; theory of Mansfield, 
410; theory of Pitt, 410; in Congress of Con- 
federation, 559; in Congress of the Constitution, 
591-592, 598. 
Representative government, established in Vir- 
ginia, 57; in Maryland, 72; in Plymouth, 95; 
in Massachusetts, 104, 203; in North Carolina, 
138; in South Carolina, r42; in New Nether- 
land, 147-148; in New York, 157, 158-159; in 
New Jersey, 163; in Pennsylvania, 172-173; 
subverted by imperialism, 187, 189; reestab- 
lished by William and Mary, 200; in the South, 
326; American and English compared, 342, 343, 
34S, 349; in Canada, 429. 
Republican ideals, in state constitutions, 348. 
Requisition system, under Confederation Congress, 

568-569. 
Restoration, 77, 131-135; colonial policy, 133, 181- 

18s. 
Restoration era, characteristics, 131-133. 
Revenge, Grenville's ship, 35. 
Revolution of 16S8, 7; main account, 192; re- 
sults in England, 193-194; in America, 194-200; 
colonial policy of Bigw government, 200-204; sig- 
nificance in American history, 205. 
Revolution of 1775-1783, eve of (proximate 
causes), 414-435; revolutionary government de- 
veloped, 435; proposals of Burke and Chatham, 
437; fighting begun, 438, 441-442; the American 
cause in 1775, 443; British preparations, 444; 
attitude of other British colonies, 446; drift 
toward independence, 448-452; resolution of 
May, 1776, 432; Declaration of Independ- 
ence, 453-456; real cause, 456; an American 
civil war, 436; the opposing forces, 459-473; 



XXXIV 



INDEX 



naval forces and land forces, 459; America 
poorly organized, 460-463; economic problenis 
463; finances, 464; management of the Ameri- 
can army and navy, 465-467; reasons for Ameri- 
can victory, 467-473; geographic factors, 46S; 
European factors, 468-473; operations on a 
small scale, 475; campaign of 1776, 475-479; 
of 1777, 480-484: attitude of France and Spain, 
485-491; campaign of 1778, 492-493; of 1779, 
493; of 1780, 494; partisan warfare, 494; lu- 
dians in, 497-498; war in the West, 498-500; 
war in the South, 500, 502-504, 507-508; cam- 
paign of 1781, 502-508; armed neutrality, 504; 
naval operations, 505, 508; treaties of peace, 
517-524; hostilities ended, 523; effect on 
churches, 533, 553; adoption of state constitu- 
tions, 547-551- 

Rhode Island, founded, 117-119; parliamentary 
patent, 118; religious toleration, 119, 120, 352; 
charter of 1663, 119, 185; merged in New Eng- 
land, 189; separate government resumed, 195; 
resumes charter, 203; paper money, 265, 581; 
slaves, 266; self-government, 267; charter 
threatened (1701), 268; education, 278; Dean 
Berkeley's visit, 278; the Gaspee affair, 423- 
424; independent government, 449; state con- 
stitution, 462, 463; absence of class barriers, 
535; rural population predominant, 538; ex- 
tent of power as colony, 556; defeats amendment 
of Articles of Confederation, 569; delays rati- 
fication of federal Constitution, 610. See New 
England and Thirteen Colonies. 

Rice, trade restricted, 235, 236; in South Carolina, 
246, 317, 320, 321; in list of enumerated articles, 
321. 

Richelieu, French statesman, 16; crushes Hugue- 
nots, 96; colonizer, 207. 

Richelieu River, military colony, 214. 

Rights of Englishmen, 7, 46; claimed by colonists, 
46, 344- 

Righls of the Brilisk Colonies Asserted and Proved, 
pamphlet by Otis, 406. 

Rights of the colonists, 46, 234, 344. 

Roads, colonial, 325, 339. 

Roanoke colony, 36. 

Roberval, plants colony, 25. 

Robinson, John, character, gi; in Leyden, 92. 

Rochambeau, Count, at Newport, 506; at York- 
town, 507, 508; cited, 506. 

Rockingharn, Marquis of, leader of "Old Whigs," 
400; ministry, 409, 411, 41s; opposition ineffec- 
tive, 471; again minister in 1782, 509; death, 

Rockingham ministry, 409; policy as to Stamp Act, 
411; fall, 415. 

Rodney, Admiral, operations in Revolutionary 
VVar, 505; victory m West Indies in 1782, 510. 

Roman Catholics, in England, 10, 11, 12, 69; ex- 
cluded from Virginia, 56; in Maryland, 69, 70, 
73, 332; in New York, 159, 196, 303; in Penn- 
sylvania, 173; under James II, 192; after Rev- 
volution of 16S8, 194; suspicion in New York, 
196; in Ireland, 227, 289; in American colonies, 
251-252, 352, 353; organization, 252; persecu- 
tion in New York, 303; discrhnination against 
in Pennsylvania, 304; persecuted in Thirteen 
Colonies, 352; in Thirteen Colonies, conserva- 
tism, 353; in Canada, 429-430; excluded from 
office in United States, 533, 552; American 
organization after Revolution, 553. 



Royal African Company, chartered, 78, 135; share 
of slave trade, 233. 

Royal province, government, 59; in the eighteenth 
century, 239-242. See Colonial government. 

Royal Society, founded, 132; American members, 
253- 

Rum, made in New England, 247, 264; in slave 
trade, 262. 

Rupert, Prince, interest in trade, 134. 

Russia, in seventeenth century, 17; in Seven 
Years' War, 374, 384; United States compared 
with, 530. 

Rutgers v. Waddinglon, cited, 572. 

Rutledge, Edward, in first Continental Congress, 
434; war office, 445; opinion of the Shays re- 
bellion, 582. 

Rutledge, John, president of South Carolina, de- 
fends Charleston, 448; delegate in constitu- 
tional convention, 587. 

Rutledges, hope for reconciliation, 450. 

Ryswick, peace of, 219. 

Sabbath, Puritan, 90, 108. 

St. Augustine, founded, 24; broken up by Drake, 
30; ravaged by English, 222; attacked by Eng- 
lish, 362. 

St. Christopher, English colony, 40; ceded by 
France, 224. 

St. Croix, French colony, 25. 

St. Eustatius, taken by British, 505; lost by 
British, 509. 

St. Johns River, French colony on, 24. 

St. Lawrence, explored, 25. 

St. Leger, Colonel, in Mohawk valley, 482, 483. 

St. Lusson, takes possession of Great Lakes region, 
210. 

St. Marys, settled, 70, 71. 

St. Pierre, retained by France, 386. 

Salem (Mass.), founded, 98; profit from commerce, 
259, 263; witchcraft, 274; foreign trade, 537. 

Salem (N. J.), settled, 164. 

Salisbury, Earl of, in Virginia Company, SS- 

Saltonstall, Sir Richard, colonizer, 99. 

Salzburg, colonists from, 315. 

Sandwich, Lord, in charge of British navy, 472. 

Sandy Hook lighthouse, 571. 

Sandys, Sir Edwin, colonizer, 38, 54; influence on 
Virginia, 54, 58; friendly to Puritans, 91, 93. 

San Miguel, colony, 23. 

Santo Domingo, taken by Drake, 30. 

Saratoga, fort abandoned (1747), 368; campaign, 
cause of British failure, 469; Burgoyne's sur- 
render, 484; effect on diplomacy, 486, 490. 

Sauer, Christopher, printer, 295. 

Sault Ste. Mane, St. Lusson at, 210. 

Saunders, Admiral, capture of Quebec, 383-384. 

Savannah, taken in 1778, 493; attempt to retake, 
493; held by British after Yorktown, 508. 

Saybrook, founded, 121. 

Schenectady, massacre. 218. 

Schlatter, Rev. Michael, leader of the German 
Reformed Church, 305. 

Schoharie valley, settled, 282. 

Schools, in England, 13; in Massachusetts, 109. 
See Education. 

Schooner, devised, 260. 

Schuyler, Peter, aristocratic leader, 196; opposes 
Leisler, 197; influence over Iroquois, 218. 

Schuyler, Gen. Philip, attacks loyalists, 482; in 
command agaigst Bmgoyne, 483-484. 



INDEX 



XXXV 



Schuylers, family in New York, i6i; inter- 
marriages, 284. 

Scotch, m Virginia, 77; in American colonies 
generally, 135, 251, 341; in South Carolina, 
142, 143. 318; in East New Jersey, 165; "factors" 
in America, 246; in Newport, 363; in Ulster, 
289; in New York city, 294; frontier loyalists, 
497. See Scotch-Irish. 

Scotch seamen, counted as English, 182. 

Scotch-Irish, oppression in Ireland, 227, 290; 
immigration, effect on church, 251; colonists 
in Maine, 258; in Massachusetts, 258; in 
New Hampshire, 258; in Pennsylvania, 282, 
29i> 303> 604; defined, 289; in Ulster, 289-290; 
religious grievances, 290; motives for emigra- 
tion 290; in New England and New York, 
291; buffer communities, 291; occupy land 
without legal title, 291, 292; aggressiveness in 
Pennsylvania, 303; Presbyterians, 305, 306; in- 
tellectual center at Princeton, 307; in Virginia, 
Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, 
319, 609; in Thirteen Colonies, 341; frontier 
Whigs, 497; immigrants in United States, 532; 
characteristics, 532; in West, 545; oppose the 
federal Constitution, 604, 609; favor Con- 
stitution, 609. 

Scotland, relation to England, 2, 182, 226; Scotch 
ships foreign, 182; influence on southern 
Presbyterians, 333; influence on American 
practices and ideals, 348. 

Scrooby congregation, 91. 

Sea power, of England, founded, 15; importance 
in British foreign policy, 359, 360; in the 
Seven Years' War, 374, 383, 38s; in Revolu- 
tion, 467, 473- 

Secretaries of state, British, 329. 

Secretary of state for the colonies, new office, 
416. 

Sectionalism, in Virginia, 82; in the colonies, 257; 
in the South, 319, 329; in politics, 329; in 
United States, 536; in the constitutional con- 
vention, sgS. 

Segur, French writer, cited, 533. 

Seigneurs, in New France, 214; military leaders, 
218. 

Selectmen, in Massachusetts, 106. 

Self-government, of colonies, 43, 109, 348, 556; 
after the Revolution of 1688, 195-200; in 
Connecticut and Rhode Island, 267-268, 556. 

Senate, representation in, SQZ- 

Separation of powers, in Virginia, 60; in state 
constitutions, 549-551. 

Separatists, in England, 12, 89-90; defined, 89; 
in Holland, 92. See Pilgrims. 

Serapis, capture, 467. 

Seven Years ' War, 374-386. 

Sewall, Samuel, typical Puritan, 253. 

Shaftesbury, Earl of. See Ashley. 

Shakespeare, popularity, 13; neglected in America, 
341. 

Sharp, Granville, antislavery leader, 554. 

Sharpe, Horatio, governor of Maryland, 370. 

IShays rebellion, 581. 

Shelbume, Earl of, leader of "Pittites," 400; 
problems of the West, 4x5-416; out of power, 
422; in ministry of 1782, sio; colonial sec- 
retary, correspondence with Franklin, 512- 
S13; character, attitude in peace negotiations, 
516; prime minister, 517; negotiations for 
West, S19; resigns, S23. 



Shenandoah valley, trade with Baltimore and 
Philadelphia, 325; Germans in, 341. See Great 
Valley of Virginia. 

Sheriff, in England, 8; in Virginia, 60; in Massa- 
chusetts, 106; American like English, 343. 

Sherman, Roger, in first Continental Congress, 
434; war office, 445; committee on Declara- 
tion of Independence, 453; member Confeder- 
ation Congress, 566; political career, delegate 
in constitutional convention, 586; cited, 592. 

Shipbuilding, in New England, 103, 260, 261, 
264; in New York, 160, 293; in Pennsylvania, 
176, 293. 

Ships, provisions of Navigation Act, 182. 

Shirley, William, governor of Massachusetts, in 
King George's VVar, 364, 365; character. 370, 
375; in P'rench and Indian War, 373; favors 
parliamentary tax, 376. 

Sidney, Algernon, philosopher, 132; influence on 
Americans, 255, 342. 

Silesia, seized by Prussia, 363. 

Silk, in Virginia, 57, 64, 78, 179; in Carolina, 138. 

Silver, from Spanish America, 22; English search 
for, 32. 

Slaughter, governor of New York, 198. 

Slave trade, English, 27, 78; interest of royal 
family, 134; why favored, 135; Dutch rivalry, 
152; French, 20S; British 223, 233, 316; New 
England, 247, 262; Newport, 262; Captain 
Lindsay's voyage, 262; importation of slaves 
prohibited by Virginia and Maryland, 533; 
movement for suppressing, 597-598. 

Slavery, in Spanish colonies, 22; development in 
Virginia, 78; in South Carolina, 141; in New 
York, 160, 292; in West New Jersey, 165; 
in New England, 266; in Pennsylvania, 292; 
in Georgia, 316; responsibility for, 316; in- 
crease in the South, 316-317; conditions in 
the South, 322; status in United States after 
Revolution, 533; prohibited in Ordinance of 
1787, 578; in the Constitution, 598. 

Smilie, John, Anti-Federalist leader in Pennsyl- 
vania, 60s. 

Smith, Adam, Wealth of Nations, influence, 570. 

Smith, Capt. John, in Virginia, 52; explores New 
England, 87; cited, 48, 49, 50. 

Smith, Sir Thomas, colonizer, 38, 45, 52; charac- 
ter, 52-54; influence on Virginia, 52, 54, 55, 
58; portrait, 53. 

Smith, William, historian, on toleration, 304. 

Smuggling, 243; Liberty seized, 419; tea, 423. 

Social scale in i6o6, 3. See Classes. 

Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign 
Parts, 249; work in New England, 250; work 
in middle colonies, 250, 304; work in Caro- 
linas, 250, 330. 

Society of Friends, 115. See Quakers. 

South, colonies in 1660, 130; fur trade, 215; 
in Queen Anne's War, 222; chapter on period 
1689-1760. 311-336; political readjustment, 
312; growth of population, 314; development 
of negro slavery, 316-317; colonization of the 
uplands, 318; immigrants from the North, 318; 
sectionalism, 319, 329; few towns, 322-323; 
voters, 327; churches, 330-333; education, 333- 
335; intellectual centers, 335; newspapers, 335; 
Revolutionary War, 500, 502-504, 507-508; 
after the Revolution, 540, 541; opposes Jay's 
Spanish policy, 574. See names of colonies. 

South America, colonized, 20-22. 



XXXVl 



INDEX 



South Carolina, French colony in, 25;. Enghsh 
colony, founded, 140-143; population, 141, 
314-315; plantation system, 141; products 
and trade, 141; churches, 142, 248, 250, 313, 
332; opposed by Spain, 143; Queen Anne's 
War, 222; rice, 246, 317, 320, 321; uprising of 
i7ig, 312-314; Church Acts of 1704. 313; 
election law of 1716, 314; becomes separate 
royal province, 314; growth of population, 
314-315; slavery in, 317, 322; Germans and 
Scotch-Irish in, 319; quitrent troubles, 320; im- 
portance of Charleston, iiy, governor curbed, 
326; council, 326; education abroad, 334; 
schools, 334; similarity to Barbados, 339; loyal- 
ists in, 441; loyalists defeated in 1776, 447; 
independent government, 449; attitude on 
independence, 454; state constitution, 462-463, 
547-SSi; in Revolutionary War, 494, 502-504; 
yields claim to Western lands, 530; conditions 
after the Revolution, 541; opinion as to slavery, 
541; delegates in Constitutional Convention, 
587; in large-state group, 590; favors slave 
trade, 598; ratifies federal Constitution, 607. 
See Carolina, South, and Thirteen Colonies. 

South Carolina Gazette, newspaper founded, 335. 

Southern secessionists of 1861, organization, 461. 

Sovereignty, Sec States. 

Spain, power, 14; relations with England, 14-15, 
27, 30, 133, 220-224, 361; and the New World, 
20; colonies, 21-24; treatment of Indians, 22; 
exclusive trade policy, 27; opposes Virginia, 
45, 56; opposes South Carolina, 143; Spanish 
succession, 219-220; alliance with France, 
220-223; Queen Anne's War, 221-224; rela- 
tions with Great Britain, 361, 374, 385, 469, 

488, 500, 522; results of the War of the Spanish 
Succession, 361; grievances against England, 
361; the Family Compact, 362; Anglo-Spanish 
War of 1739, 362; alliance with France (1761), 
385; results of Seven Years' War, 386; loans 
and aid to United States, 464, 469, 485; policy 
in 1777, 488; relations with United States, 

489, 51S, 573; question of free navigation of 
the Mississippi, 489-490; enters war as an ally 
of France, 490; activities in the Southwest, 499; 
war with Great Britain (i779), 5oo; attitude to- 
ward United States, 515; claims in West, 518- 
519; regains Floridas, 520, 522; treaty of peace 
with Great Britain (1783), 522. 

Spanish Netherlands, attacked by Louis XIV, 
216, 220. 

Spanish Succession, War of the, 220, 361. 

Speakership question, in Massachusetts, 271. 

Spectator essays, influence on America, 254. 

S. P. G., defined, 249. 

Spotswood, Alexander, governor of Virginia, career, 
327-328; cited, 327- 

Springfield (Mass.) founded, 121. 

Stamp Act, passed, 404-405; opposition, 406; 
Stamp Act Congress, 408; appeal to force, 408; 
repealed, 411, 414. 

Stamp Act Congress, 408. 

Staple Act of 1663, 182, 183. 

Star Chamber, court in England, 7. 

Stark, Capt. John, battle of Bennington, 483. 

State rights, basis of New England confedera- 
tion, 126. See States. 

Staten Island, Dutch settlers, 146; British troops 
on, 459, 478. . 

States, declaration of Congress, 459; grudgmg 



attitude toward Congress, 461; poor organiza- 
tion, 462; character of the new constitutions, 
463; taxing power, paper money, 464; militia, 
character, 465; claims to western lands, 529, 
530; constitution making, 547-551; suffrage 
qualifications, 548; veto power, 550; religious 
tests, 551; encouragement of education, 554; 
sovereignty under Continental Congress, 558; 
sovereignty under Confederation, 561; violate 
treaties, 572-573; provision for new states in 
Ordmance of 1787, 578; sovereignty under the 
Constitution, 612. 

States-General, of Netherlands, 144. 

Staves, in trade of New England, 261. 

Stay laws, demanded by debtor class, 580. 

Steele, Richard, essayist, friend of Joseph 
Dudley, 253; Spectator essays, influence on 
America, 254. 

Steuben, inspector-general, 466, 492; valuable 
service, 466. 

Stillwater, battle, 484. 

Stirling, Earl of, colonizer, 42. 

Stone, governor of Maryland, 76, 77. 

Stormont, Lord, ambassador in Paris, 487. 

Strafford, Earl of, supports autocratic rule, 97. 

Stuart, superintendent of Indian affairs in the 
South, 444; loyalist influence, 497. 

Stuarts, royal family, 133. See Charles I, Charles 
II, James I, James II. 

Stuy^'esant, Peter, governor of New Netherland, 
147; autocratic government, 148; church policy, 
149; opposes Swedes and English, 151, 152. 

" Suffolk (Resolves " of 1774, 431; approved by 
Congress, 434. 

Suffrage, in Massachusetts, 103, 104, 274; in 
Connecticut and Rhode Island, 267; in New 
York, 297; in the South, 327; in Thirteen 
Colonies, 348; in the states, 548; for federal 
elections, 599. 

Sugar, in English West Indies, 40; trade regu- 
lated, 182, 183; duty, 235, 403, 404. 

Sugar Act of 1764, 403, 404; effects of, 405-406. 

Sumter, guerrilla leader, 494. 

Supreme law, and its enforcement, 594-595. 

Surinam, English colony 41. 

Susquehanna River, navigable, 48. 

Susquehanna valley, early settlers, 282; Scotch- 
Irish in, 291; Connecticut settlers in Wyoming 
Valley, 295, 542. 

Susquehannocks, Indian tribe, 49, 70. 

Sweden, in seventeenth century, 17; alliance of 
1668, 216. 

Swedes, in New Sweden, 150-151; in New Jersey, 
163; in Pennsylvania and Delaware, 174. 

Swiss colonists, motives for emigration, 285; in 
North Carolina, 287, 317; in Pennsylvania, 288, 
305; churches, 305; in South Carolina, 318. 

Switzerland, in seventeenth and eighteenth cen- 
turies, 285; emigration, 286. 

Talon, Jean, intendant of New France, 210. 

Tangiers, acquired by Charles II, 134. 

Tarleton, Colonel, guerrilla leader, 494; _ battle 
of the Cowpens, 503; campaign in Virginia, 507. 

Taxation, in Virginia, 59, 60; in charter of Penn- 
sylvania, 171; in the colonies, 237, 343; argu- 
ments for tax by Parliament, 403, 404; 
Sugar Act, 404; Stamp Act, 404-412; issue 
unsettled, 414; _ Townshend Duty Act, 417; 
taxing power given to Congress, 596. 



INDEX 



XXXVU 



Taxation No Tyranny, Johnson's tract, 470. 

Taxation without representation, under Andros, 
191; argument against Stamp Act, 408. 

Tea, trade, 388; tax, 417;. retained, 423; Act 
of 1773, 426; colonial resistance, 426; Boston 
Tea Party, 427. 

Tenants, in England in 1606, 5; in middle colonies, 
283. See Land tenure. 

"Tender" laws, demanded by debtor class, 380. 

Tenison, Thomas, head of S. P. G., 250. 

Tennessee, De Soto in, 23; early settlements, 
4Q7. 543 ; Indian raids, 498; frontiersmen in 
battle of Kings Mountain, 500; proposed state 
of Franklin, 529. 

Tennessee River, route to West, 543. 

Tennyson, cited, 35. 

Territorial government, genesis of, 576-578. 

Territories on the Delaware, 169, 170. See 
Delaware. 

Texas, Spanish missionaries in, 24. 

Theater, first in America, 335. 

Thirteen Colonies, control and influence by 
England, 229-235; common interests, 339; 
conflict with insular interests, 340; population, 
340; race and language, 340-341; govern- 
ment, 342-350; law, 344-347; churches, 351- 
354; in French and Indian War, 373, 377, 
382, 390, 392; plans for intercolonial union, 
376; reimbursed, 391; growth, 391; self-con- 
fidence, 392; friction with British government, 
393-397. 402-408; eve of Revolution, 414-433; 
breakdown of provincial governments, 448- 
449; distribution of powers between colonial 
and imperial governments, 536. See Revolu- 
tion, and names of colonies. 

Thirty Years' War, 16; effects on colonization, 
i7i 151, 174, 285; destructiveness, 285. 

Ticonderoga, battle (1758), 382; abandoned by 
French, 384; taken by Allen, 446; taken by 
British in 1777, 483. 

Tidewater region, physical features, 48, 49; 
dominated by English, 318; characteristics, 
319-323; products, 320; labor system, 321; 
Anglican Church, 332; in Virginia, favors 
Constitution, 609. 

Timber trade restricted, 233. 

Tithes, in England, 10. 

Titles of nobility, in Carolina, 137; condemned 
in state constitutions, 334. 

Tobacco, cultivated by Indians, 50; in Virginia, 
57, 64, 78, 540; the plantation system, 64, 320; 
production in England prohibited, 64; trade 
regulated, 64, 81, 180, 182, 183; in Maryland, 
72; in North Carolina, 138; extent of trade 
(1706), 246; planters' difficulties, 320; used 
as money, 394; conditions of trade after the 
Revolution, 340. 

Toleration. See Religious toleration. 

Toleration Act, Maryland, 76, 77. 

Toleration Act of 1689 in England, 194, 203. 

Tories, in America, 434, 440. See Loyalists. 

Tory party, in Great Britain, discredited by 
Jacobites, 398; in reign of Gecrge III, 401. 

Town meeting, in New England, 106, 267;^ powers, 
106, 330; under Andros. 191: restricted by 
Massachusetts Government Act, 428. 

Towns, New England, 102; few in the South, 
323. 

Townshend, Charles, character and policy, 416; 
Townshend Acts, 417. 



Townshend Acts, 417; American opposition, 
418-422; duties abandoned, 423. 

Township system of public land surveys, 373. 

Trans-Allegheny country, 3r8. See West. 

Transatlantic travel in seventeenth century, 47; 
communications in the eighteenth century, 242. 

Transportation, seventeenth-century ocean vessels, 
47; rivers in Virginia, 48; in Pennsylvania, 
293; in the South, 324-325. colonial roads, 
32s. 339; slowness, 336; proposed canals, 541; 
western pioneers, 342-343. 

Transylvania, colony, 496. 

Treasurer, colonial, 241. 

Treasurer, provincial, 241; in New York, 298; in 
Pennsylvania, 300; in Virginia, 326. 

Treasury Board, British, 229, 232. 

Treasury department, with single head, 302. 

Treaties, Westphalia, 131, 286; Breda, 133; 
Ryswick, 219; Utrecht, 223-224; Aix-la-Cha- 
pelle, 363; Paris (1763), 386; Fort Stanwbc. 
416, 429; treaty of 1782, 312-322; treaty of 
Paris, 1783, 324; commercial treaties, 570; 
treaties violated by states, 572-373; enforcement 
of treaties, 594-595- 

Trenton, battle, 479-480; Confederation Congress 
at, 367. 

Trespass Act, in New York, 372-373. 

Trevell v. 'Weeden, cited, 381. 

Trial by jury, in colonies, 347; in Ordinance of 
1787, 378. 

Trial in England of colonists who had committed 
crimes, proposed, 421, 423. 

Triple Alliance of 1668, 216. 

Tryon, governor of New York, opposes Revolu- 
tion, 448. 

Tudor kings, 6, 14. 

Turgot, minister of Louis XVI, 486; on Ameri- 
can independence, 326; on American problem 
of government, 326; cited, 326. 

Turkey Company, chartered, 4. 

Turner, cited, 357. 

Tuscaroras, war, 313. 

Ulster, settled by Scotchmen and Englishmen, 2; 
colonists from, 289; colonists in, 289; econ- 
omic grievances, 290; influence on southern 
Presbyterians, 333; assistance to America, 
469. 

Ulster County, N. Y., Scotch-Irish, 291. 

Uncas, Mohegan chieftain, 126. 

Unconstitutional legislation, and the courts, 347; 
controlled by judges, 593. 

Union, Albany Plan, 376; Galloway plan, 434; 
development of, 553-363. 

Unitarian movement, in New England, 277. 

United Colonies of New England, 126. 

United Kingdom of Great Britain, created, 226. 

United States, Declaration of Independence, 
43s; financing the Revolution, 464; alliance 
with France, 490, 491; peace negotiations, 
312-524; attitude toward Spain, 513; independ- 
ence conceded, 317; territorial boundaries, 
517-320; fisheries, 320; preliminary treaty 
of 1782, 522; treaty of 1783, 324; doubtful 
prospects, 326-327; British posts, 327; Spanish 
claims, 527; Indians in West, 328; inter- 
state boundary questions, 320; physical re- 
sources, 330; population, 331; distribution, 
531-532; racial elements. 332; churches, 333, 
S4S; social distinctions, 334-335; sectionalism. 



XXXVlll 



INDEX 



536; commercial problems, 536; internal im- 
provements, S41; development o'' federal union, 
555-563; powers of the Continental Congress, 
558; federal problems, 1783-1787, 565-582; 
beginnings of colonial policy, 574-579; move- 
ment for a more effective union, 579-582; eco- 
nomic and social discontent, 579-581; economic 
grievances, 580; nature of union, 612. See 
Revolution, Congress, Constitution, etc. 

Universities, in England, 13. 

University of Pennsylvania, founded by Franklin, 
307. 

University of Virginia, inspired by Jefferson, 555. 

Usselinx, Willem, colonizer, 150. 

Utrecht, treaty of, 223-224. 

Valley Forge, cause of sufferings, 463; American 
army at, 484. 

Van Cortlandt, Stephen, aristocratic leader, 196. 

Van Cortlandt family, in New York, 160. 

Vane, Henry, governor of Massachusetts, 114. 

Van Rensselaer, Killian, patroon, 145. 

Van Rensselaers, in New York, intermarriages, 
284. 

Vaudreuil, governor of New France, 378, 384. 

Vera Cruz, Captain Hawkins at, 27. 

Vergennes, Count of, policy toward United 
States, 486, 487, 488; negotiation with Frank- 
lin, 489; alliance with United States, 490; 
opinion of Adams, 513; attitude in peace nego- 
tiations, 515; opinion of Osv/ald's commission, 
517; attitude on claims to West, 518-519; com- 
munication to Congress, 523; pacified by Frank- 
lin, 523- 

Vermont, first settlements, 259; taking of Ticon- 
deroga and Crown Point, 446; becomes a 
state, 4p6; claimed by New York, 496, 529; 
Whigs m, 497; settled by New Englanders, 
S42; population, 542. 

Vernon, Admiral, takes Porto Bello, 362. 

Verrazano, explorer, 24. 

Vespucius, Americus, explorer, 20. 

Vestry, Virginia, 60. 

Vetch, Samuel, in Queen Aime's War, 222. 

Veto power, of provincial governor, 23S; in state 
constitutions, 550; President's, 594. 

Vincennes, British trading post, 498; taken by 
Clark, 499. 

Virginia, Spanish claim, 22; name, 37; charter of 
1606, 37, 45; opposition of Spain, 45; expedi- 
tion of 1606, 47; instructions to colonists, 47, 
51; physical features, 48, 49; Indians 49-52, 
58, 62, 63, 82; Jamestown settlement, 51; 
near failure, 52, 56; population, 52, 56, 62, 
77. 314. 31s; charter of 1609, 54; of 1612, 55; 
churches, 56, 61, 77, 248, 330-332. 351, 533, 552; 
tobacco, 57, 64, 78, 79, 320, 540; nret legis- 
lature, _ 57; royal province, 59-61; social 
classes,"62; servants, 62, 77; land system, 63; 
plantations, 63, 64, 79, 319; loyalists, 65, 74, 77; 
emigrants from, 65, 136, 138; opposes Lord 
Baltimore, 68; Commonwealth government, 75; 
Restoration, 77; negro slavery, 77-78, 3r7, 322; 
early westward movement, 80; fur trade. 80, 
215, 221; grievances, 80-82; Bacon's Rebellion, 
82-84; conditions in 1688, 84-85; trade, 151, 
180, 183, 246; friction with imperial collectors, 
185; unrest in 1689, 198; Germans in, 288, 317, 
319; securely established in 1700, 311; growth 
of population, 314-315; Scotch-Irish in, 319; 



large estates, 320; quitrent troubles, 320; gov- 
ernor's power, 325; model imperial provmce, 
325; council influential, 326; education abroad, 
333,334; English sports, 342; local government 
much like English, 344, 350; similarity to Eng- 
land, 354; claims upper Ohio 369, 389; Parson s 
Cause, 394; opposes Stamp Act, 406-408; 
Resolves of 1769, 421; friction before the 
Revolution, 425; radicals and conservatives, 
425-426, 432; committee of correspondence, 
425; Lord Dunmore's War, 439; revolutionary 
methods, 439; loyalists (Tories), 440-441; rifle- 
men in the army at Cambridge, 445; in- 
dependent government, 453; state constitu- 
tion, 462, 463, 547-551; Kentucky county, 497; 
Clark expedition, 499; county of Illinois, 
499; military operations, 507-508; Ken- 
tucky claims statehood, 529; claims North- 
west, 529, 530; yields claim to Northwest, 
530, 574; prohibits importation of slaves, 534; 
conditions after the Revolution, 540; interest 
in the West, 541; method of adopting state 
constitution, 547; suffrage qualifications, 548; 
apportionment, 549-551; no veto power, 550; 
state governor, 551; complete religious liberty 
552; primogeniture abolished, 554; public 
education, 555; discriminatory duties, 571; 
paper-money movement defeated, 580; con- 
ference with Maryland, 585; Annapolis Con- 
vention, 585; delegates in constitutional conven- 
tion, 585; in large-state' group, 590; ratifies 
federal Constitution, 608-610. See South, and 
Thirteen Colonies. 

Virginia Company, members, 38, 39, 45, 55; aims 
and methods, 56; internal troubles, 58; fall, 
59; relation to Pilgrims, 92, 94. 

Virginia Gazelle, newspaper founded, 335. 

Virginia plan of constitution, 589; approved, 591; 
executive, 593; power of Congress over states, 
594; influence on details, 600. 

Virginia Resolves, of 1769, 421. 

Voltaire, read by Americans, 341. 

"Volunteers," of Ireland, 469. 

Voyageurs, work for British, 498. 

Wachovia (N. C), foimded, 32;. 

Wages, in United States, 536. 

Wall Street, compared with England, 247. 

Walloons, in New Netherland, 145. 

Walpole, Sir Robert, prime minister, 229; against 
parliamentary duties on the colonies, 237; war 
with Spain, 362. 

War department, or War Office, organized by 
Congress, 461; with single head, 502; under 
Confederation, 565. 

War of the Austrian Succession, 363-365. 

War Office, organized by Congress, 461. 

Warren, Commodore, takes Louisburg, 364. 

Warwick (R. I.), founded, 118. 

Warwick, Robert Rich, Earl of, colonizer, 39, 41, 
42; commissioner, 74; Council for New Eng- 
land, 88. 

Washington, George, mission to Ohio country, 
371; skirmish with French, 371; aide to Brad- 
dock, 373; military rank, 377; reputation, 
392; Virginia Resolves of 1769, 421; in first 
Continental Congress, 433; revolutionary ac- 
tivity, 439; appointed commander in chief, 
443; character, 443, 467, 534, 588; takes Boston, 
445 ; favors independence, 449; oath of alle- 



INDEX 



XXXIX 



giance to the United States, 461 ; hampered by 

fovemmental weakness, 463-465; hampered 
y political interference, 467; contribution to 
victory, 467; tries to defend New York, 478- 
479; battle of Long Island, 479; retreat across 
New Jersey, 479; Trenton and Princeton, 
479-480; Chads Ford and Germantown, 
481; Valley Forge, 484; Conway Cabal, 485; 
battle of Monmouth, 492; expedition against 
Iroquois, 499; on weakness of government, 
501; chooses Greene for southern command, 
S02; plans to attack New York, 506; York- 
town campaign, 507; "Farewell Orders," 526; 
v/arning as to federal government, 526; appre- 
ciation of American economic resources, 531; 
typical country gentleman, 534; interest in 
canals, 541; conservative Western policy, 544; 
retirement at Mount Vernon, 566; pacifies 
army officers, 567-568; offer of kingship, 567; 
Newburg addresses, 568; approves annulment 
of Trespass Act, 573; opinion of the Shays 
rebellion, 582; favors revision of Articles of 
Confederation, 584; favors cooperation of 
Virginia and Maryland, 584; delegate in con- 
stitutional convention, 585; public spirit, 588; 
president of the convention, 5S8; nationalist 
leader, 589; favors adoption of Constitution, 
608; Federal leader, 610; first President of 
the United States, 610, 613; cited, 464, 484, 
5or, 526, 531. 

Watauga settlement, 497. 

Webster, Pelatiah, proposes new federal consti- 
tution, 584. 

Wedderbum, Solicitor-General, attacks Franklin, 
431. 

Weiser, Conrad, backwoods leader, 293. 

Wclshj in American colonies, 135; in Pennsyl- 
vania, 175; in South Carolina, 318. 

Wentworth, Sir Thomas, supports autocratic 
rule, 97. 

Wesley, John, publishes tract against colonies, 
470; leads to formation of Methodist Episcopal 
Church in United States, 553. 

West, French in, 212, 357-386; old and new dis- 
tinguished, 357; struggle for, 357-386; loss of 
British prestige, 374; under British rule, 389; 
Shelburne's policy, 415-416; added to Quebec, 
430; Mississippi question, 489, 519, 543, 573; 
frontier communities, 496-497; British in- 
fluence, 498; in Revolution, 498-500; in peace 
negotiations, 518-519; occupation delayed by 
British and Spanish claims, 528; conflicting 
state claims, 529, 559; state cessions, 530; 
population, 531; conditions after the Revolu- 
tion, 542-545; characteristics of the western 
settlers, 544-545; religion, 545; provision in 
Articles of Confederation concerning state claims, 
559; opposes Jay's Spanish policy, 574; land 
system, 575; genesis of territorial government, 
576-578; colonization under federal protection, 
579; proposed restrictions in Constitution, 599. 

West, Richard, cited on rights of Englishmen, 345. 

West Florida, British province, 390; taken bv 
Spain, 500; secret agreement concerning bound- 
ary, 520. 

West Indians, in Newport, 263. 

West Indies, Spanish colonization, 21; English 
colonies, 40; trade, 40, 235, 247, 261, 264, 403, 
4°S. S37> S39> 57°; 'Q 1660, 130; French, 209; 
Queen Anne's War, 221; influence in Parlia- 



ment, 228, 23s 340; relations with Thirteen 
Colonies, 338; favored colonies, 340; Molasses 
Act evaded. 391; trade affected Ly Sugar Act, 
403, 405; no revolutionary spirit, 446; opera- 
tions in Revolutionary War, 505, 509, 510; 
trade after the Revolution, 537, 539; American 
shipping excluded, 570. 

West New Jersey, 164, 165; reunited, 204. 

West Point, Arnold's plot, 501. 

West Virginia, colonized, 496; early settlements, 
543- 

Westchester County, large land grants, 283. 

Westover estate of William Byrd, 320, 328, 335. 

Westphalia, peace of, effect on New Sweden, 151; 
religious settlement, 286. 

Westsylvania, proposed colony, 496. 

Wethersfield (Conn.), founded, 121. 

Whaling industry, 260; favored by Grenville, 402. 

Wheat, in Virginia, 49, 540; in New England, loi; 
in South Carolina, 141; in New York, 160; 
in Pennsylvania, 176; in middle colonies, 292, 
293; in back country, 324; in Illinois country, 
358. 

Whig party in England, decides against American 
bishops, 249; in power under George I and 
George II, 379, 397; principles, 397; factional 
contests, 398, 399-400. 

"Whigs," American, in Virginia and the Con- 
tinental Congress, 433; attitude toward Chat- 
ham's proposal, 438; in Massachusetts, 441- 
442; appeal to Canadians, 446; victory at 
Moores Creek Bridge, 447; moderate Whigs, 
4501 451; theory of governmental authority, 
451; on the frontier, 497; attitude toward 
loyalists, 521. 

White, Father, in Maryland, 70. 

White, John, at Roanoke, 36. 

White Plains, American army at, 479. 

Whitefield, George, Great Awakening, 232; main 
account, 276, 277. 

Whitehill, Robert, Anti-Federalist leader in Penn- 
sylvania, 605. 

Wilkinson and Ayrault, in slave trade, 262. 

William III, accession, 194; colonial policy, 200- 
203; opposes France, 216, 217 ; controls Ireland, 
217; Spanish succession, 220; power as King, 
227; supported by Scotch-Irish Orangemen, 
289. 

William and Mary College, founded, character, 333; 
at Williamsburg, 335; Jefferson's plan, 555. 

William the Silent, Dutch leader, 18. 

Williams, Roger, views, 112; banished, 113; 
founds Providence, 117; secures patent, 118; 
policy toward Quakers, 120; religious policy, 
325. 

Williamsburg, capital of Virginia, 323; intellectual 
center, 335. 

Willoughby, Lord, colonizer, 41. 

Wills Creek, trading post, Washington at, 371. 

Wilmington (Del.), Swedish fort, 150. 

Wilmington (N. C). settled, 315; capital, 323; 
British base, 503. 

Wilson, James, War Office, 445; hopes for recon- 
ciliation, 450; opposes proposal for independent 
governments, 452; delegate in constitutional 
convention, 586, 587; nationalist leader, 589; 
opposes compromise on representation, 592; 
favors West, 599; Federal leader, 605; inter- 
pretation of the Constitution, 612. 

Windsor (Conn.), founded, 121. 



xl 



INDEX 



^ iSC-f 



Wine, in Virginia, 57, 179; in Carolina, 138. 

Winthrop, John, governor, voyage to Massa- 
chusetts, 47, 98;. character, 99; president of 
New England Confederation, 126; cited, 113. 

Winthrop, John, Jr., founds Saybrook, 121; gov- 
ernor of Connecticut, secures charter, 123. 

Winthrop, John, professor in Harvard, 278. 

Winthrop v. Leckmere, cited, 350. 

Wisconsin, held in part by British, 527. 

Wise, John, opposes Andros taxation, 191; on 
democracy, 273; opposes absolutism, 344; 
cited, 341. 

Witchcraft, Salem, 274. 

Wolfe, James, takes Louisburg, 381, 382; capture 
of Quebec, 383-384; death, 384; impatience 
with militia, 393. 

Women, in Virginia, 57; Anne Hutchinson in 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island, 113, 114 
117, 118; girls educated in England, 253; 
ladies in New England, 266; schools in the 
South, 334. 

Wood, Capt. Abraham, explorer, 80. 

Woolen manufactures, in England, 4; in Ireland, 
227, 290, 291; restricted in colonies, 236, 264! 



Woolens Act of 1699, 236, 264, 290. 

World War, use of economic resources, 464. 

Writs of assistance, in Massachusetts, 396; ap- 
proved by Parliament, 417. 

Wyoming valley, settled by Connecticut col- 
onists, 29s, 542; massacre, 499; awarded to 
Pennsylvania, 529; dispute settled by arbi- 
tration, 563. 

Yale College, founded, 277; protest against Great 

Awakening, 277. 
Yates (of N. Y.), opposes Constitution, 608. 
Yemassees, war, 313. 
Yeomen, English social class, 3, g. 
York, Duke of. See James II. 
York River, navigable, 48. 
Yorktown campaign, 507; effect on English 

opinion, soQ- 

Zenger, John Peter, libel case, 299. 
Zenger case, 299; significance, 351. 
Zuniga, cited, 55. 



